Страница:
Asia (Australia to be apportioned to one of these). A joint court of
arbitration for questions involving issues that cannot be settled within the
limits of any one of these three regions.
The International of Science
At a sitting of the Academy during the War, at the time when national
and political infatuation had reached its height, Emil Fischer spoke the
following emphatic words: "It's no use, Gentlemen, science is and remains
international." The really great scientists have always known this and felt
it passionately, even though in times of political confusion they may have
remained isolated among their colleagues of inferior calibre. In every camp
during the War this mass of voters betrayed their sacred trust. The
international society of the academies was broken up. Congresses were and
still are held from which colleagues from ex-enemy countries are excluded.
Political considerations, advanced with much solemnity, prevent the triumph
of purely objective ways of thinking without which our great aims must
necessarily be frustrated.
What can right-minded people, people who are proof against the
emotional temptations of the moment, do to repair the damage? With the
majority of intellectual workers still so excited, truly international
congresses on the grand scale cannot yet be held. The psychological
obstacles to the restoration of the international associations of scientific
workers are still too formidable to be overcome by the minority whose ideas
and feelings are of a more comprehensive kind. These last can aid in the
great work of restoring the international societies to health by keeping in
close touch with like-minded people all over the world and resolutely
championing the international cause in their own spheres. Success on a large
scale will take time, but it will undoubtedly come. I cannot let this
opportunity pass without paying a tribute to the way in which the desire to
preserve the confraternity of the intellect has remained alive through all
these difficult years in the breasts of a large number of our English
colleagues especially.
The disposition of the individual is everywhere better than the
official pronouncements. Right-minded people should bear this in mind and
not allow themselves to be misled and get angry: senatores boni viri,
senatus autem bestia.
If I am full of confident hope concerning the progress of international
organization in general, that feeling is based not so much on my confidence
in the intelligence and high-mindedness of my fellows, but rather on the
irresistible pressure of economic developments. And since these depend
largely on the work even of reactionary scientists, they too will help to
create the international organization against their wills.
The Institute for Intellectual Co-operation
During this year the leading politicians of Europe have for the first
time drawn the logical conclusion from the truth that our portion of the
globe can only regain its prosperity if the underground struggle between the
traditional political units ceases. The political organization of Europe
must be strengthened, and a gradual attempt made to abolish tariff barriers.
This great end cannot be achieved by treaties alone. People's minds must,
above all, be prepared for it. We must try gradually to awaken in them a
sense of solidarity which does not, as hitherto, stop at frontiers. It is
with this in mind that the League of Nations has created the Commission de
coopИration intellectuelle. This Commission is to be an absolutely
international and entirely nonpolitical authority, whose business it is to
put the intellectuals of all the nations, who were isolated by the war, into
touch with each other. It is a difficult task; for it has, alas, to be
admitted that--at least in the countries with which I am most closely
acquainted--the artists and men of learning are governed by narrowly
nationalist feelings to a far greater extent than the men of affairs.
Hitherto this Commission has met twice a year. To make its efforts more
effective, the French Government has decided to create and maintain a
permanent Institute for intellectual co-operation, which is just now to be
opened. It is a generous act on the part of the French nation and deserves
the thanks of all.
It is an easy and grateful task to rejoice and praise and say nothing
about the things one regrets or disapproves of. But honesty alone can help
our work forward, so I will not shrink from combining criticism with this
greeting to the new-born child.
I have daily occasion for observing that the greatest obstacle which
the work of our Commission has to encounter is the lack of confidence in its
political impartiality. Everything must be done to strengthen that
confidence and everything avoided that might harm it.
When, therefore, the French Government sets up and maintains an
Institute out of public funds in Paris as a permanent organ of the
Commission, with a Frenchman as its Director, the outside observer can
hardly avoid the impression that French influence predominates in the
Commission. This impression is further strengthened by the fact that so far
a Frenchman has also been chairman of the Commission itself. Although the
individuals in question are men of the highest reputation, liked and
respected everywhere, nevertheless the impression remains.
Dixi et salvavi animam naeam. I hope with all my heart that the new
Institute, by constant interaction with the Commission, will succeed in
promoting their common ends and winning the confidence and recognition of
intellectual workers all over the world.
A Farewell
A letter to the German Secretary of the League of Nations
Dear Herr Dufour-Feronce,
Your kind letter must not go unanswered, otherwise you may get
a mistaken notion of my attitude. The grounds for my resolve to
go to Geneva no more are as follows: Experience has,
unhappily, taught me that the Commission, taken as a whole,
stands for no serious determination to make real progress with
the task of improving international relations. It looks to me far
more like an embodiment of the principle ut aliquid fieri
videatur. The Commission seems to me even worse in this
respect than the League taken as a whole.
It is precisely because I desire to work with all my might for the
establishment of an international arbitrating and regulative
authority superior to the State, and because I have this object
so very much at heart, that I feel compelled to leave the
Commission.
The Commission has given its blessing to the oppression of the
cultural minorities in all countries by causing a National
Commission to be set up in each of them, which is to form the
only channel of communication between the intellectuals of a
country and the Commission. It has thereby deliberately
abandoned its function of giving moral support to the national
minorities in their struggle against cultural oppression.
Further, the attitude of the Commission in the matter of
combating the chauvinistic and militaristic tendencies of
education in the various countries has been so lukewarm that no
serious efforts in this fundamentally important sphere can be
hoped for from it.
The Commission has invariably failed to give moral support to
those individuals and associations who have thrown themselves
without reserve into the business of working for an international
order and against the military system.
The Commission has never made any attempt to resist the
appointment of members whom it knew to stand for tendencies
the very reverse of those it is bound in duty to foster.
I will not worry you with any further arguments, since you will
understand my resolve yell enough from these few hints. It is not
my business to draw up an indictment, but merely to explain my
position. If I nourished any hope whatever I should act
differently--of that you may be sure.
The Question of Disarmament
The greatest obstacle to the success of the disarmament plan was the
fact that people in general left out of account the chief difficulties of
the problem. Most objects are gained by gradual steps: for example, the
supersession of absolute monarchy by democracy. Here, however, we are
concerned with an objective which cannot be reached step by step.
As long as the possibility of war remains, nations will insist on being
as perfectly prepared militarily as they can, in order to emerge triumphant
from the next war. It will also be impossible to avoid educating the youth
in warlike traditions and cultivating narrow national vanity joined to the
glorification of the warlike spirit, as long as people have to be prepared
for occasions when such a spirit will be needed in the citizens for the
purpose of war. To arm is to give one's voice and make one's preparations
not for peace but for war. Therefore people will not disarm step by step;
they will disarm at one blow or not at all.
The accomplishment of such a far-reaching change in the life of nations
presupposes a mighty moral effort, a deliberate departure from deeply
ingrained tradition. Anyone who is not prepared to make the fate of his
country in case of a dispute depend entirely on the decisions of an
international court of arbitration, and to enter into a treaty to this
effect without reserve, is not really resolved to avoid war. It is a case of
all or nothing.
It is undeniable that previous attempts to ensure peace have failed
through aiming at inadequate compromises.
Disarmament and security are only to be had in combination. The one
guarantee of security is an undertaking by all nations to give effect to the
decisions of the international authority.
We stand, therefore, at the parting of the ways. Whether we find the
way of peace or continue along the old road of brute force, so unworthy of
our civilization, depends on ourselves. On the one side the freedom of the
individual and the security of society beckon to us, on the other slavery
for the individual and the annihilation of our civilization threaten us. Our
fate will be according to our deserts.
The Disarmament Conference of 1932
May I begin with an article of political faith? It runs as follows: The
State is made for man, not man for the State. And in this respect science
resembles the State. These are old sayings, coined by men for whom human
personality was the highest human good. I should shrink from repeating them,
were it not that they are for ever threatening to fall into oblivion,
particularly in these days of organization and mechanization. I regard it as
the chief duty of the State to protect the individual and give him the
opportunity to develop into a creative personality.
That is to say, the State should be our servant and not we its slaves.
The State transgresses this commandment when it compels us by force to
engage in military and war service, the more so since the object and the
effect of this slavish service is to kill people belonging to other
countries or interfere with their freedom of development. We are only to
make such sacrifices to the State as will promote the free development of
individual human beings. To any American all this may be a platitude, but
not to any European. Hence we may hope that the fight against war will find
strong support among Americans.
And now for the Disarmament Conference. Ought one to laugh, weep, or
hope when one thinks of it? Imagine a city inhabited by fiery-tempered,
dishonest, and quarrelsome citizens. The constant danger to life there is
felt as a serious handicap which makes all healthy development impossible.
The magistrate desires to remedy this abominable state of affairs, although
all his counsellors and the rest of the citizens insist on continuing to
carry a dagger in their girdles. After years of preparation the magistrate
determines to compromise and raises the question, how long and how sharp the
dagger is allowed to be which anyone may carry in his belt when he goes out.
As long as the cunning citizens do not suppress knifing by legislation, the
courts, and the police, things go on in the old way, of course. A definition
of the length and sharpness of the permitted dagger will help only the
strongest and most turbulent and leave the weaker at their mercy. You will
all understand the meaning of this parable. It is true that we have a League
of Nations and a Court of Arbitration. But the League is not much more than
a meeting-hall, and the Court has no means of enforcing its decisions. These
institutions provide no security for any country in case of an attack on it.
If you bear this in mind, you will judge the attitude of the French, their
refusal to disarm without security, less harshly than it is usually judged
at present.
Unless we can agree to limit the sovereignty of the individual State by
all binding ourselves to take joint action against any country which openly
or secretly resists a judgment of the Court of Arbitration, we shall never
get out of a state of universal anarchy and terror. No sleight of hand can
reconcile the unlimited sovereignty of the individual country with security
against attack. Will it need new disasters to induce the countries to
undertake to enforce every decision of the recognized international court?
The progress of events so far scarcely justifies us in hoping for anything
better in the near future. But everyone who cares for civilization and
justice must exert all his strength to convince his fellows of the necessity
for laying all countries under an international obligation of this kind.
It will be urged against this notion, not without a certain
justification, that it over-estimates the efficacy of machinery, and
neglects the psychological, or rather the moral, factor. Spiritual
disarmament, people insist, must precede material disarmament. They say
further, and truly, that the greatest obstacle to international order is
that monstrously exaggerated spirit of nationalism which also goes by the
fair-sounding but misused name of patriotism. During the last century and a
half this idol has acquired an uncanny and exceedingly pernicious power
everywhere.
To estimate this objection at its proper worth, one must realize that a
reciprocal relation exists between external machinery and internal states of
mind. Not only does the machinery depend on traditional modes of feeling and
owe its origin and its survival to them, but the existing machinery in its
turn exercises a powerful influence on national modes of feeling.
The present deplorably high development of nationalism everywhere is,
in my opinion, intimately connected with the institution of compulsory
military service or, to call it by its less offensive name, national armies.
A country which demands military service of its inhabitants is compelled to
cultivate a nationalistic spirit in them, which provides the psychological
foundation of military efficiency. Along with this religion it has to hold
up its instrument, brute force, to the admiration of the youth in its
schools.
The introduction of compulsory service is therefore, to my mind, the
prime cause of the moral collapse of the white race, which seriously
threatens not merely the survival of our civilization but our very
existence. This curse, along with great social blessings, started with the
French Revolution, and before long dragged all the other nations in its
train.
Therefore those who desire to encourage the growth of an international
spirit and to combat chauvinism must take their stand against compulsory
service. Is the severe persecution to which conscientious objectors to
military service are subjected to-day a whit less disgraceful to the
community than those to which the martyrs of religion were exposed in former
centuries? Can you, as the Kellogg Pact does, condemn war and at the same
time leave the individual to the tender mercies of the war machine in each
country?
If, in view of the Disarmament Conference, we are not to restrict
ourselves to the technical problems of organization involved but also to
tackle the psychological question more directly from educational motives, we
must try on international lines to invent some legal way by which the
individual can refuse to serve in the army. Such a regulation would
undoubtedly produce a great moral effect.
This is my position in a nutshell: Mere agreements to limit armaments
furnish no sort of security. Compulsory arbitration must be supported by an
executive force, guaranteed by all the participating countries, which is
ready to proceed against the disturber of the peace with economic and
military sanctions. Compulsory service, as the bulwark of unhealthy
nationalism, must be combated; most important of all, conscientious
objectors must be protected on an international basis.
Finally, I would draw your attention to a book, War again To-morrow, by
Ludwig Bauer, which discusses the issues here involved in an acute and
unprejudiced manner and with great psychological insight.
The benefits that the inventive genius of man has conferred on us in
the last hundred years could make life happy and care-free if organization
had been able to keep pace with technical progress. As it is, these hard-won
achievements in the hands of our generation are like a razor in the hands of
a child of three. The possession of marvellous means of production has
brought care and hunger instead of freedom.
The results of technical progress are most baleful where they furnish
means for the destruction of human life and the hard-won fruits of toil, as
we of the older generation experienced to our horror in the Great War. More
dreadful even than the destruction, in my opinion, is the humiliating
slavery into which war plunges the individual. Is it not a terrible thing to
be forced by the community to do things which every individual regards as
abominable crimes? Only a few had the moral greatness to resist; them I
regard as the real heroes of the Great War.
There is one ray of hope. I believe that the responsible leaders of the
nations do, in the main, honestly desire to abolish war. The resistance to
this essential step forward comes from those unfortunate national traditions
which are handed on like a hereditary disease from generation to generation
through the workings of the educational system. The principal vehicle of
this tradition is military training and its glorification, and, equally,
that portion of the Press which is controlled by heavy industry and the
soldiers. Without disarmament there can be no lasting peace. Conversely, the
continuation of military preparations on the present scale will inevitably
lead to new catastrophes.
That is why the Disarmament Conference of 1932 will decide the fate of
this generation and the next. When one thinks how pitiable, taken as a
whole, have been the results of former conferences, it becomes clear that it
is the duty of all intelligent and responsible people to exert their full
powers to remind public opinion again and again of the importance of the
1932 Conference. Only if the statesmen have behind them the will to peace of
a decisive majority in their own countries can they attain their great end,
and for the formation of this public opinion each one of us is responsible
in every word and deed.
The doom of the Conference would be sealed if the delegates came to it
with ready-made instructions, the carrying out of which would soon become a
matter of prestige. This seems to be generally realized. For meetings
between the statesmen of two nations at a time, which have become very
frequent of late, have been used to prepare the ground for the Conference by
conversations about the disarmament problem. This seems to me a very happy
device, for two men or groups of men can usually discuss things together
most reasonably, honestly, and dispassionately when there is no third person
present in front of whom they think they must be careful what they say. Only
if exhaustive preparations of this kind are made for the Conference, if
surprises are thereby ruled out, and an atmosphere of confidence is created
by genuine good will, can we hope for a happy issue.
In these great matters success is not a matter of cleverness, still
less of cunning, but of honesty and confidence. The moral element cannot be
displaced by reason, thank heaven ! It is not the individual spectator's
duty merely to wait and criticize. He must serve the cause by all means in
his power. The fate of the world will be such as the world deserves.
America and the Disarmasnent Conference
The Americans of to-day are filled with the cares arising out of
economic conditions in their own country. The efforts of their responsible
leaders are directed primarily to remedying the serious unemployment at
home. The sense of being involved in the destiny of the rest of the world,
and in particular of the mother country of Europe, is even less strong than
in normal times.
But the free play of economic forces will not by itself automatically
overcome these difficulties. Regulative measures by the community are needed
to bring about a sound distribution of labour and consumption-goods among
mankind; without them even the people of the richest country suffocate. The
fact is that since the amount of work needed to supply everybody's needs has
been reduced through the improvement of technical methods, the free play of
economic forces no longer produces a state of affairs in which all the
available labour can find employment. Deliberate regulation and organization
are becoming necessary to make the results of technical progress beneficial
to all.
If the economic situation cannot be cleared up without systematic
regulation, how much more necessary is such regulation for dealing with the
problems of international politics! Few people still cling to the notion
that acts of violence in the shape of wars are either advantageous or worthy
of humanity as a method of solving international problems. But they are not
logical enough to make vigorous efforts on behalf of the measures which
might prevent war, that savage and unworthy relic of the age of barbarism.
It requires some power of reflection to see the issue clearly and a certain
courage to serve this great cause resolutely and effectively.
Anybody who really wants to abolish war must resolutely declare himself
in favour of his own country's resigning a portion of its sovereignty in
favour of international institutions: he must be ready to make his own
country amenable, in case of a dispute, to the award of an international
court. He must in the most uncompromising fashion support disarmament all
round, which is actually envisaged in the unfortunate Treaty of Versailles;
unless military and aggressively patriotic education is abolished, we can
hope for no progress.
No event of the last few years reflects such disgrace on the leading
civilized countries of the world as the failure of all disarmament
conferences so far; for this failure is due not only to the intrigues of
ambitious and unscrupulous politicians, but also to the indifference and
slackness of the public in all countries. Unless this is changed we shall
destroy all the really valuable achievements of our predecessors.
I believe that the American nation is only imperfectly aware of the
responsibility which rests with it in this matter. People in America no
doubt think as follows: "Let Europe go to the dogs, if it is destroyed by
the quarrelsomeness and wickedness of its inhabitants. The good seed of our
Wilson has produced a mighty poor crop in the stony ground of Europe. We are
strong and safe and in no hurry to mix ourselves up in other people's
affairs."
Such an attitude is at once base and shortsighted. America is partly to
blame for the difficulties of Europe. By ruthlessly pressing her claims she
is hastening the economic and therewith the moral collapse of Europe; she
has helped to Balkanize Europe, and therefore shares the responsibility for
the breakdown of political morality and the growth of that spirit of revenge
which feeds on despair. This spirit will not stop short of the gates of
America--I had almost said, has not stopped short. Look around, and look
forward.
The truth can be briefly stated: The Disarmament Conference comes as a
final chance, to you no less than to us, of preserving the best that
civilized humanity has produced. And it is on you, as the strongest and
comparatively soundest among us, that the eyes and hopes of all are focused.
Active Pacifism
I consider myself lucky in witnessing the great peace demonstration
organized by the Flemish people. To all concerned in it I feel impelled to
call out in the name of men of good will with a care for the future: "In
this hour of opened eyes and awakening conscience we feel ourselves united
with you by the deepest ties."
We must not conceal from ourselves that an improvement in the present
depressing situation is impossible without a severe struggle; for the
handful of those who are really determined to do something is minute in
comparison with the mass of the lukewarm and the misguided. And those who
have an interest in keeping the machinery of war going are a very powerful
body; they will stop at nothing to make public opinion subservient to their
murderous ends.
It looks as if the ruling statesmen of to-day were really trying to
secure permanent peace. But the ceaseless piling-up of armaments shows only
too clearly that they are unequal to coping with the hostile forces which
are preparing for war. In my opinion, deliverance can only come from the
peoples themselves. If they wish to avoid the degrading slavery of
war-service, they must declare with no uncertain voice for complete
disarmament. As long as armies exist, any serious quarrel will lead to war.
A pacifism which does not actually try to prevent the nations from arming is
and must remain impotent.
May the conscience and the common sense of the peoples be awakened, so
that we may reach a new stage in the life of nations, where people will look
back on war as an incomprehensible aberration of their forefathers!
Letter to a Friend of Peace
It has come to my ears that in your greatheartedness you are quietly
accomplishing a splendid work, impelled by solicitude for humanity and its
fate. Small is the number of them that see with their own eyes and feel with
their own hearts. But it is their strength that will decide whether the
human race must relapse into that hopeless condition which a blind multitude
appears to-day to regard as the ideal.
O that the nations might see, before it is too late, how much of their
self-determination they have got to sacrifice in order to avoid the struggle
of all against all! The power of conscience and the international spirit has
proved itself inadequate. At present it is being so weak as to tolerate
parleying with the worst enemies of civilization. There is a kind of
conciliation which is a crime against humanity, and it passes for political
wisdom.
We cannot despair of humanity, since we are ourselves human beings. And
it is a comfort that there still exist individuals like yourself, whom one
knows to be alive and undismayed.
Another ditto
Dear friend and spiritual brother,
To be quite frank, a declaration like the one before me in a
country which submits to conscription in peace-time seems to
me valueless. What you must fight for is liberation from universal
military service. Verily the French nation has had to pay heavily
for the victory of 1918; for that victory has been largely
responsible for holding it down in the most degrading of all forms
of slavery. Let your efforts in this struggle be unceasing. You
have a mighty ally in the German reactionaries and militarists. If
France clings to universal military service, it will be impossible in
the long run to prevent its introduction into Germany. For the
demand of the Germans for equal rights will succeed in the end;
and then there will be two German military slaves to every
French one, which would certainly not be in the interests of
France.
Only if we succeed in abolishing compulsory service altogether
will it be possible to educate the youth in the spirit of
reconciliation, joy in life, and love towards all living creatures.
I believe that a refusal on conscientious grounds to serve in the
army when called up, if carried out by 50,000 men at the same
moment, would be irresistible. The individual can accomplish
little here, nor can one wish to see the best among us devoted to
destruction through the machinery behind which stand the three
great powers of stupidity, fear, and greed.
A third ditto
Dear Sir,
The point with which you deal in your letter is one of prime
importance. The armament industry is, as you say, one of the
greatest dangers that beset mankind. It is the hidden evil power
behind the nationalism which is rampant everywhere.…
Possibly something might be gained by nationalization. But it is
extremely hard to determine exactly what industries should be
included. Should the aircraft industry? And how much of the
metal industry and the chemical industry?
As regards the munitions industry and the export of war material,
the League of Nations has busied itself for years with efforts to
get this horrible traffic controlled--with what little success, we all
know. Last year I asked a well-known American diplomat why
Japan was not forced by a commercial boycott to desist from
her policy of force. "Our commercial interests are too strong,"
was the answer. How can one help people who rest satisfied
with a statement like that?
You believe that a word from me would suffice to get something
done in this sphere? What an illusion! People flatter me as long
as I do not get in their way. But if I direct my efforts towards
objects which do not suit them, they immediately turn to abuse
and calumny in defence of their interests. And the onlookers
mostly keep out of the light, the cowards! Have you ever tested
the civil courage of your countrymen? The silently accepted
motto is "Leave it alone and don't speak of it." You may be sure
that I shall do everything in my power along the lines you
indicate, but nothing can be achieved as directly as you think.
Women and War
In my opinion, the patriotic women ought to be sent to the front in the
next war instead of the men. It would at least be a novelty in this dreary
sphere of infinite confusion, and besides--why should not such heroic
feelings on the part of the fair sex find a more picturesque outlet than in
attacks on a defenceless civilian?
Thoughts on the World Economic Crisis
If there is one thing that can give a layman in the sphere of economics
the courage to express an opinion on the nature of the alarming economic
difficulties of the present day, it is the hopeless confusion of opinions
among the experts. What I have to say is nothing new and does not pretend to
be anything more than the opinion of an independent and honest man who,
unburdened by class or national prejudices, desires nothing but the good of
humanity and the most harmonious possible scheme of human existence. If in
what follows I write as if I were clear about certain things and sure of the
truth of what I am saying, this is done merely for the sake of an easier
mode of expression; it does not proceed from unwarranted self-confidence or
a belief in the infallibility of my somewhat simple intellectual conception
of problems which are in reality uncommonly complex.
As I see it, this crisis differs in character from past crises in that
it is based on an entirely new set of conditions, due to rapid progress in
methods of production. Only a fraction of the available human labour in the
world is needed for the production of the total amount of consumption-goods
necessary to life. Under a completely free economic system this fact is
bound to lead to unemployment. For reasons which I do not propose to analyse
here, the majority of people are compelled to work for the minimum wage on
which life can be supported. If two factories produce the same sort of
goods, other things being equal, that one will be able to produce them more
cheaply which employs less workmen--i.e., makes the individual worker work
as long and as hard as human nature permits. From this it follows inevitably
that, with methods of production what they are to-day, only a portion of the
available labour can be used. While unreasonable demands are made on this
portion, the remainder is automatically excluded from the process of
production. This leads to a fall in sales and profits. Businesses go smash,
which further increases unemployment and diminishes confidence in industrial
concerns and therewith public participation in these mediating banks;
finally the banks become insolvent through the sudden withdrawal of deposits
and the wheels of industry therewith come to a complete standstill.
The crisis has also been attributed to other causes which we will now
consider.
(1) Over-production. We have to distinguish between two things
here--real over-production and apparent over-production. By real
overproduction I mean a production so great that it exceeds the demand. This
m4y perhaps apply to motor-cars and wheat in the United States at the
present moment, although even that is doubtful. By "over-production" people
usually mean a condition of things in which more of one particular article
is produced than can, in existing circumstances, be sold, in spite of a
shortage of consumption-goods among consumers. This condition of things I
call apparent over-production. In this case it is not the demand that is
lacking but the consumers' purchasing-power. Such apparent over-production
is only another word for a crisis, and therefore cannot serve as an
explanation of the latter; hence people who try to make over-production
responsible for the crisis are merely juggling with words.
(2) Reparations. The obligation to pay reparations lies heavy on the
debtor nations and their industries, compels them to go in for dumping, and
so harms the creditor nations too This is beyond dispute. But the appearance
of the crisis in the United States, in spite of the high tariff-wall
protecting them, proves that this cannot be the principal cause of the world
crisis. The shortage of gold in the debtor countries due to reparations can
at most serve as an argument for putting an end to these payments; it cannot
be dragged in as an explanation of the world crisis.
(3) Erection of near tariff-walls. Increase in the unproductive burden
of armaments. Political in security owing to latent danger of war. All these
things add considerably to the troubles of Europe, but do not materially
affect America. The appearance of the crisis in America shows that they
cannot be its principal causes.
(4) The dropping-out of the two Powers, China and Russia. This blow to
world trade also does not touch America very nearly, and therefore cannot be
a principal cause of the crisis.
(5) The economic rise of the lower classes since the War. This,
supposing it to be a reality, could only produce a scarcity of goods, not an
excessive supply.
I will not weary the reader by enumerating further contentions which do
not seem to me to get to the heart of the matter. Of one thing I feel
certain: this same technical progress which, in itself, might relieve
mankind of a great part of the labour necessary to its subsistence, is the
main cause of our present troubles. Hence there are those who would in all
seriousness forbid the introduction of technical improvements. This is
obviously absurd. But how can we find a more rational way out of our
dilemma?
If we could somehow manage to prevent the purchasing-power of the
masses, measured in terms of goods, from sinking below a certain minimum,
stoppages in the industrial cycle such as we are experiencing to-day would
be rendered impossible.
The logically simplest but also most daring method of achieving this is
a completely planned economy, in which consumption-goods are produced and
distributed by the community. That, in essentials, is what is being
attempted in Russia to-day. Much will depend on what results this mighty
experiment produces. To hazard a prophecy here would be presumption. Can
goods be produced as economically under such a system as under one which
leaves more freedom to individual enterprise? Can this system maintain
itself at all without the terror that has so far accompanied it, which none
of us "westerners" would care to let himself in for? Does not such a rigid,
centralized system tend towards protection and hostility to advantageous
innovations? We must take care, however, not to allow these suspicions to
become prejudices which prevent us from forming an objective judgment.
My personal opinion is that those methods are preferable which respect
existing traditions and habits so far as that is in any way compatible with
the end in view. Nor do I believe that a sudden transference of the control
of industry to the hands of the public would be beneficial from the point of
view of production; private enterprise should be left its sphere of
activity, in so far as it has not already been eliminated by industry itself
in the form of cartelization.
There are, however, two respects in which this economic freedom ought
to be limited. In each branch of industry the number of working hours per
week ought so to be reduced by law that unemployment is systematically
abolished. At the same time minimum wages must be fixed in such a way that
the purchasing power of the workers keeps pace with production.
Further, in those industries which have become monopolistic in
character through organization on the part of the producers, prices must be
controlled by the State in order to keep the creation of new capital within
reasonable bounds and prevent the artificial strangling of production and
consumption.
In this way it might perhaps be possible to establish a proper balance
between production and consumption without too great a limitation of free
enterprise, and at the same time to stop the intolerable tyranny of the
owners of the means of production (land, machinery) over the wage-earners,
in the widest sense of the term.
Culture and Prosperity
If one would estimate the damage done by the great political
catastrophe to the development of human civilization, one must remember that
culture in its higher forms is a delicate plant which depends on a
complicated set of conditions and is wont to flourish only in a few places
at any given time. For it to blossom there is needed, first of all, a
certain degree of prosperity, which enables a fraction of the population to
work at things not directly necessary to the maintenance of life; secondly,
a moral tradition of respect for cultural values and achievements, in virtue
of which this class is provided with the means of living by the other
classes, those who provide the immediate necessities of life.
During the past century Germany has been one of the countries in which
both conditions were fulfilled. The prosperity was, taken as a whole, modest
but sufficient; the tradition of respect for culture vigorous. On this basis
the German nation has brought forth fruits of culture which form an integral
part of the development of the modern world. The tradition, in the main,
still stands; the prosperity is gone. The industries of the country have
been cut off almost completely from the sources of raw materials on which
the existence of the industrial part of the population was based. The
surplus necessary to support the intellectual worker has suddenly ceased to
exist. With it the tradition which depends on it will inevitably collapse
also, and a fruitful nursery of culture turn to wilderness.
The human race, in so far as it sets a value on culture, has an
interest in preventing such impoverishment. It will give what help it can in
the immediate crisis and reawaken that higher community of feeling, now
thrust into the background by national egotism, for which human values have
a validity independent of politics and frontiers. It will then procure for
every nation conditions of work under which it can exist and under which it
can bring forth fruits of culture.
Production and Purchasing Power
I do not believe that the remedy for our present difficulties lies in a
knowledge of productive capacity and consumption, because this knowledge is
likely, in the main, to come too late. Moreover the trouble in Germany seems
to me to be not hypertrophy of the machinery of production but deficient
purchasing power in a large section of the population, which has been cast
out of the productive process through rationalization.
The gold standard has, in my opinion, the serious disadvantage that a
shortage in the supply of gold automatically leads to a contraction of
credit and also of the amount of currency in circulation, to which
contraction prices and wages cannot adjust themselves sufficiently quickly.
The natural remedies for our troubles are, in my opinion, as follows:--
(1) A statutory reduction of working hours, graduated for each
department of industry, in order to get rid of unemployment, combined with
the fixing of minimum wages for the purpose of adjusting the
purchasing-power of the masses to the amount of goods available.
(2) Control of the amount of money in circulation and of the volume of
credit in such a way as to keep the price-level steady, all special
protection being abolished.
(3) Statutory limitation of prices for such articles as have been
practically withdrawn from free competition by monopolies or the formation
of cartels.
Production and Work
An answer to CederstrЖm
Dear Herr CederstrЖm,
Thank you for sending me your proposals, which interest me
very much. Having myself given so much thought to this subject I
feel that it is right that I should give you my perfectly frank
opinion on them.
The fundamental trouble seems to me to be the almost unlimited
freedom of the labour market combined with extraordinary
progress in the methods of production. To satisfy the needs of
the world to-day nothing like all the available labour is wanted.
The result is unemployment and excessive competition among
the workers, both of which reduce purchasing power and put
the whole economic system intolerably out of gear.
I know Liberal economists maintain that every economy in
labour is counterbalanced by an increase in demand. But, to
begin with, I don't believe it, and even if it were true, the
above-mentioned factors would always operate to force the
standard of living of a large portion of the human race doom to
an unnaturally low level.
I also share your conviction that steps absolutely must be taken
to make it possible and necessary for the younger people to take
part in the productive process. Further, that the older people
ought to be excluded from certain sorts of work (which I call
"unqualified" work), receiving instead a certain income, as having
by that time done enough work of a kind accepted by society as
productive.
I too am in favour of abolishing large cities, but not of settling
people of a particular type--e.g., old people--in particular
towns. Frankly, the idea strikes me as horrible. I am also of
opinion that fluctuations in the value of money must be avoided,
by substituting for the gold standard a standard based on certain
classes of goods selected according to the conditions of
consumption--as Keynes, if I am not mistaken, long ago
proposed. With the introduction of this system one might
arbitration for questions involving issues that cannot be settled within the
limits of any one of these three regions.
The International of Science
At a sitting of the Academy during the War, at the time when national
and political infatuation had reached its height, Emil Fischer spoke the
following emphatic words: "It's no use, Gentlemen, science is and remains
international." The really great scientists have always known this and felt
it passionately, even though in times of political confusion they may have
remained isolated among their colleagues of inferior calibre. In every camp
during the War this mass of voters betrayed their sacred trust. The
international society of the academies was broken up. Congresses were and
still are held from which colleagues from ex-enemy countries are excluded.
Political considerations, advanced with much solemnity, prevent the triumph
of purely objective ways of thinking without which our great aims must
necessarily be frustrated.
What can right-minded people, people who are proof against the
emotional temptations of the moment, do to repair the damage? With the
majority of intellectual workers still so excited, truly international
congresses on the grand scale cannot yet be held. The psychological
obstacles to the restoration of the international associations of scientific
workers are still too formidable to be overcome by the minority whose ideas
and feelings are of a more comprehensive kind. These last can aid in the
great work of restoring the international societies to health by keeping in
close touch with like-minded people all over the world and resolutely
championing the international cause in their own spheres. Success on a large
scale will take time, but it will undoubtedly come. I cannot let this
opportunity pass without paying a tribute to the way in which the desire to
preserve the confraternity of the intellect has remained alive through all
these difficult years in the breasts of a large number of our English
colleagues especially.
The disposition of the individual is everywhere better than the
official pronouncements. Right-minded people should bear this in mind and
not allow themselves to be misled and get angry: senatores boni viri,
senatus autem bestia.
If I am full of confident hope concerning the progress of international
organization in general, that feeling is based not so much on my confidence
in the intelligence and high-mindedness of my fellows, but rather on the
irresistible pressure of economic developments. And since these depend
largely on the work even of reactionary scientists, they too will help to
create the international organization against their wills.
The Institute for Intellectual Co-operation
During this year the leading politicians of Europe have for the first
time drawn the logical conclusion from the truth that our portion of the
globe can only regain its prosperity if the underground struggle between the
traditional political units ceases. The political organization of Europe
must be strengthened, and a gradual attempt made to abolish tariff barriers.
This great end cannot be achieved by treaties alone. People's minds must,
above all, be prepared for it. We must try gradually to awaken in them a
sense of solidarity which does not, as hitherto, stop at frontiers. It is
with this in mind that the League of Nations has created the Commission de
coopИration intellectuelle. This Commission is to be an absolutely
international and entirely nonpolitical authority, whose business it is to
put the intellectuals of all the nations, who were isolated by the war, into
touch with each other. It is a difficult task; for it has, alas, to be
admitted that--at least in the countries with which I am most closely
acquainted--the artists and men of learning are governed by narrowly
nationalist feelings to a far greater extent than the men of affairs.
Hitherto this Commission has met twice a year. To make its efforts more
effective, the French Government has decided to create and maintain a
permanent Institute for intellectual co-operation, which is just now to be
opened. It is a generous act on the part of the French nation and deserves
the thanks of all.
It is an easy and grateful task to rejoice and praise and say nothing
about the things one regrets or disapproves of. But honesty alone can help
our work forward, so I will not shrink from combining criticism with this
greeting to the new-born child.
I have daily occasion for observing that the greatest obstacle which
the work of our Commission has to encounter is the lack of confidence in its
political impartiality. Everything must be done to strengthen that
confidence and everything avoided that might harm it.
When, therefore, the French Government sets up and maintains an
Institute out of public funds in Paris as a permanent organ of the
Commission, with a Frenchman as its Director, the outside observer can
hardly avoid the impression that French influence predominates in the
Commission. This impression is further strengthened by the fact that so far
a Frenchman has also been chairman of the Commission itself. Although the
individuals in question are men of the highest reputation, liked and
respected everywhere, nevertheless the impression remains.
Dixi et salvavi animam naeam. I hope with all my heart that the new
Institute, by constant interaction with the Commission, will succeed in
promoting their common ends and winning the confidence and recognition of
intellectual workers all over the world.
A Farewell
A letter to the German Secretary of the League of Nations
Dear Herr Dufour-Feronce,
Your kind letter must not go unanswered, otherwise you may get
a mistaken notion of my attitude. The grounds for my resolve to
go to Geneva no more are as follows: Experience has,
unhappily, taught me that the Commission, taken as a whole,
stands for no serious determination to make real progress with
the task of improving international relations. It looks to me far
more like an embodiment of the principle ut aliquid fieri
videatur. The Commission seems to me even worse in this
respect than the League taken as a whole.
It is precisely because I desire to work with all my might for the
establishment of an international arbitrating and regulative
authority superior to the State, and because I have this object
so very much at heart, that I feel compelled to leave the
Commission.
The Commission has given its blessing to the oppression of the
cultural minorities in all countries by causing a National
Commission to be set up in each of them, which is to form the
only channel of communication between the intellectuals of a
country and the Commission. It has thereby deliberately
abandoned its function of giving moral support to the national
minorities in their struggle against cultural oppression.
Further, the attitude of the Commission in the matter of
combating the chauvinistic and militaristic tendencies of
education in the various countries has been so lukewarm that no
serious efforts in this fundamentally important sphere can be
hoped for from it.
The Commission has invariably failed to give moral support to
those individuals and associations who have thrown themselves
without reserve into the business of working for an international
order and against the military system.
The Commission has never made any attempt to resist the
appointment of members whom it knew to stand for tendencies
the very reverse of those it is bound in duty to foster.
I will not worry you with any further arguments, since you will
understand my resolve yell enough from these few hints. It is not
my business to draw up an indictment, but merely to explain my
position. If I nourished any hope whatever I should act
differently--of that you may be sure.
The Question of Disarmament
The greatest obstacle to the success of the disarmament plan was the
fact that people in general left out of account the chief difficulties of
the problem. Most objects are gained by gradual steps: for example, the
supersession of absolute monarchy by democracy. Here, however, we are
concerned with an objective which cannot be reached step by step.
As long as the possibility of war remains, nations will insist on being
as perfectly prepared militarily as they can, in order to emerge triumphant
from the next war. It will also be impossible to avoid educating the youth
in warlike traditions and cultivating narrow national vanity joined to the
glorification of the warlike spirit, as long as people have to be prepared
for occasions when such a spirit will be needed in the citizens for the
purpose of war. To arm is to give one's voice and make one's preparations
not for peace but for war. Therefore people will not disarm step by step;
they will disarm at one blow or not at all.
The accomplishment of such a far-reaching change in the life of nations
presupposes a mighty moral effort, a deliberate departure from deeply
ingrained tradition. Anyone who is not prepared to make the fate of his
country in case of a dispute depend entirely on the decisions of an
international court of arbitration, and to enter into a treaty to this
effect without reserve, is not really resolved to avoid war. It is a case of
all or nothing.
It is undeniable that previous attempts to ensure peace have failed
through aiming at inadequate compromises.
Disarmament and security are only to be had in combination. The one
guarantee of security is an undertaking by all nations to give effect to the
decisions of the international authority.
We stand, therefore, at the parting of the ways. Whether we find the
way of peace or continue along the old road of brute force, so unworthy of
our civilization, depends on ourselves. On the one side the freedom of the
individual and the security of society beckon to us, on the other slavery
for the individual and the annihilation of our civilization threaten us. Our
fate will be according to our deserts.
The Disarmament Conference of 1932
May I begin with an article of political faith? It runs as follows: The
State is made for man, not man for the State. And in this respect science
resembles the State. These are old sayings, coined by men for whom human
personality was the highest human good. I should shrink from repeating them,
were it not that they are for ever threatening to fall into oblivion,
particularly in these days of organization and mechanization. I regard it as
the chief duty of the State to protect the individual and give him the
opportunity to develop into a creative personality.
That is to say, the State should be our servant and not we its slaves.
The State transgresses this commandment when it compels us by force to
engage in military and war service, the more so since the object and the
effect of this slavish service is to kill people belonging to other
countries or interfere with their freedom of development. We are only to
make such sacrifices to the State as will promote the free development of
individual human beings. To any American all this may be a platitude, but
not to any European. Hence we may hope that the fight against war will find
strong support among Americans.
And now for the Disarmament Conference. Ought one to laugh, weep, or
hope when one thinks of it? Imagine a city inhabited by fiery-tempered,
dishonest, and quarrelsome citizens. The constant danger to life there is
felt as a serious handicap which makes all healthy development impossible.
The magistrate desires to remedy this abominable state of affairs, although
all his counsellors and the rest of the citizens insist on continuing to
carry a dagger in their girdles. After years of preparation the magistrate
determines to compromise and raises the question, how long and how sharp the
dagger is allowed to be which anyone may carry in his belt when he goes out.
As long as the cunning citizens do not suppress knifing by legislation, the
courts, and the police, things go on in the old way, of course. A definition
of the length and sharpness of the permitted dagger will help only the
strongest and most turbulent and leave the weaker at their mercy. You will
all understand the meaning of this parable. It is true that we have a League
of Nations and a Court of Arbitration. But the League is not much more than
a meeting-hall, and the Court has no means of enforcing its decisions. These
institutions provide no security for any country in case of an attack on it.
If you bear this in mind, you will judge the attitude of the French, their
refusal to disarm without security, less harshly than it is usually judged
at present.
Unless we can agree to limit the sovereignty of the individual State by
all binding ourselves to take joint action against any country which openly
or secretly resists a judgment of the Court of Arbitration, we shall never
get out of a state of universal anarchy and terror. No sleight of hand can
reconcile the unlimited sovereignty of the individual country with security
against attack. Will it need new disasters to induce the countries to
undertake to enforce every decision of the recognized international court?
The progress of events so far scarcely justifies us in hoping for anything
better in the near future. But everyone who cares for civilization and
justice must exert all his strength to convince his fellows of the necessity
for laying all countries under an international obligation of this kind.
It will be urged against this notion, not without a certain
justification, that it over-estimates the efficacy of machinery, and
neglects the psychological, or rather the moral, factor. Spiritual
disarmament, people insist, must precede material disarmament. They say
further, and truly, that the greatest obstacle to international order is
that monstrously exaggerated spirit of nationalism which also goes by the
fair-sounding but misused name of patriotism. During the last century and a
half this idol has acquired an uncanny and exceedingly pernicious power
everywhere.
To estimate this objection at its proper worth, one must realize that a
reciprocal relation exists between external machinery and internal states of
mind. Not only does the machinery depend on traditional modes of feeling and
owe its origin and its survival to them, but the existing machinery in its
turn exercises a powerful influence on national modes of feeling.
The present deplorably high development of nationalism everywhere is,
in my opinion, intimately connected with the institution of compulsory
military service or, to call it by its less offensive name, national armies.
A country which demands military service of its inhabitants is compelled to
cultivate a nationalistic spirit in them, which provides the psychological
foundation of military efficiency. Along with this religion it has to hold
up its instrument, brute force, to the admiration of the youth in its
schools.
The introduction of compulsory service is therefore, to my mind, the
prime cause of the moral collapse of the white race, which seriously
threatens not merely the survival of our civilization but our very
existence. This curse, along with great social blessings, started with the
French Revolution, and before long dragged all the other nations in its
train.
Therefore those who desire to encourage the growth of an international
spirit and to combat chauvinism must take their stand against compulsory
service. Is the severe persecution to which conscientious objectors to
military service are subjected to-day a whit less disgraceful to the
community than those to which the martyrs of religion were exposed in former
centuries? Can you, as the Kellogg Pact does, condemn war and at the same
time leave the individual to the tender mercies of the war machine in each
country?
If, in view of the Disarmament Conference, we are not to restrict
ourselves to the technical problems of organization involved but also to
tackle the psychological question more directly from educational motives, we
must try on international lines to invent some legal way by which the
individual can refuse to serve in the army. Such a regulation would
undoubtedly produce a great moral effect.
This is my position in a nutshell: Mere agreements to limit armaments
furnish no sort of security. Compulsory arbitration must be supported by an
executive force, guaranteed by all the participating countries, which is
ready to proceed against the disturber of the peace with economic and
military sanctions. Compulsory service, as the bulwark of unhealthy
nationalism, must be combated; most important of all, conscientious
objectors must be protected on an international basis.
Finally, I would draw your attention to a book, War again To-morrow, by
Ludwig Bauer, which discusses the issues here involved in an acute and
unprejudiced manner and with great psychological insight.
The benefits that the inventive genius of man has conferred on us in
the last hundred years could make life happy and care-free if organization
had been able to keep pace with technical progress. As it is, these hard-won
achievements in the hands of our generation are like a razor in the hands of
a child of three. The possession of marvellous means of production has
brought care and hunger instead of freedom.
The results of technical progress are most baleful where they furnish
means for the destruction of human life and the hard-won fruits of toil, as
we of the older generation experienced to our horror in the Great War. More
dreadful even than the destruction, in my opinion, is the humiliating
slavery into which war plunges the individual. Is it not a terrible thing to
be forced by the community to do things which every individual regards as
abominable crimes? Only a few had the moral greatness to resist; them I
regard as the real heroes of the Great War.
There is one ray of hope. I believe that the responsible leaders of the
nations do, in the main, honestly desire to abolish war. The resistance to
this essential step forward comes from those unfortunate national traditions
which are handed on like a hereditary disease from generation to generation
through the workings of the educational system. The principal vehicle of
this tradition is military training and its glorification, and, equally,
that portion of the Press which is controlled by heavy industry and the
soldiers. Without disarmament there can be no lasting peace. Conversely, the
continuation of military preparations on the present scale will inevitably
lead to new catastrophes.
That is why the Disarmament Conference of 1932 will decide the fate of
this generation and the next. When one thinks how pitiable, taken as a
whole, have been the results of former conferences, it becomes clear that it
is the duty of all intelligent and responsible people to exert their full
powers to remind public opinion again and again of the importance of the
1932 Conference. Only if the statesmen have behind them the will to peace of
a decisive majority in their own countries can they attain their great end,
and for the formation of this public opinion each one of us is responsible
in every word and deed.
The doom of the Conference would be sealed if the delegates came to it
with ready-made instructions, the carrying out of which would soon become a
matter of prestige. This seems to be generally realized. For meetings
between the statesmen of two nations at a time, which have become very
frequent of late, have been used to prepare the ground for the Conference by
conversations about the disarmament problem. This seems to me a very happy
device, for two men or groups of men can usually discuss things together
most reasonably, honestly, and dispassionately when there is no third person
present in front of whom they think they must be careful what they say. Only
if exhaustive preparations of this kind are made for the Conference, if
surprises are thereby ruled out, and an atmosphere of confidence is created
by genuine good will, can we hope for a happy issue.
In these great matters success is not a matter of cleverness, still
less of cunning, but of honesty and confidence. The moral element cannot be
displaced by reason, thank heaven ! It is not the individual spectator's
duty merely to wait and criticize. He must serve the cause by all means in
his power. The fate of the world will be such as the world deserves.
America and the Disarmasnent Conference
The Americans of to-day are filled with the cares arising out of
economic conditions in their own country. The efforts of their responsible
leaders are directed primarily to remedying the serious unemployment at
home. The sense of being involved in the destiny of the rest of the world,
and in particular of the mother country of Europe, is even less strong than
in normal times.
But the free play of economic forces will not by itself automatically
overcome these difficulties. Regulative measures by the community are needed
to bring about a sound distribution of labour and consumption-goods among
mankind; without them even the people of the richest country suffocate. The
fact is that since the amount of work needed to supply everybody's needs has
been reduced through the improvement of technical methods, the free play of
economic forces no longer produces a state of affairs in which all the
available labour can find employment. Deliberate regulation and organization
are becoming necessary to make the results of technical progress beneficial
to all.
If the economic situation cannot be cleared up without systematic
regulation, how much more necessary is such regulation for dealing with the
problems of international politics! Few people still cling to the notion
that acts of violence in the shape of wars are either advantageous or worthy
of humanity as a method of solving international problems. But they are not
logical enough to make vigorous efforts on behalf of the measures which
might prevent war, that savage and unworthy relic of the age of barbarism.
It requires some power of reflection to see the issue clearly and a certain
courage to serve this great cause resolutely and effectively.
Anybody who really wants to abolish war must resolutely declare himself
in favour of his own country's resigning a portion of its sovereignty in
favour of international institutions: he must be ready to make his own
country amenable, in case of a dispute, to the award of an international
court. He must in the most uncompromising fashion support disarmament all
round, which is actually envisaged in the unfortunate Treaty of Versailles;
unless military and aggressively patriotic education is abolished, we can
hope for no progress.
No event of the last few years reflects such disgrace on the leading
civilized countries of the world as the failure of all disarmament
conferences so far; for this failure is due not only to the intrigues of
ambitious and unscrupulous politicians, but also to the indifference and
slackness of the public in all countries. Unless this is changed we shall
destroy all the really valuable achievements of our predecessors.
I believe that the American nation is only imperfectly aware of the
responsibility which rests with it in this matter. People in America no
doubt think as follows: "Let Europe go to the dogs, if it is destroyed by
the quarrelsomeness and wickedness of its inhabitants. The good seed of our
Wilson has produced a mighty poor crop in the stony ground of Europe. We are
strong and safe and in no hurry to mix ourselves up in other people's
affairs."
Such an attitude is at once base and shortsighted. America is partly to
blame for the difficulties of Europe. By ruthlessly pressing her claims she
is hastening the economic and therewith the moral collapse of Europe; she
has helped to Balkanize Europe, and therefore shares the responsibility for
the breakdown of political morality and the growth of that spirit of revenge
which feeds on despair. This spirit will not stop short of the gates of
America--I had almost said, has not stopped short. Look around, and look
forward.
The truth can be briefly stated: The Disarmament Conference comes as a
final chance, to you no less than to us, of preserving the best that
civilized humanity has produced. And it is on you, as the strongest and
comparatively soundest among us, that the eyes and hopes of all are focused.
Active Pacifism
I consider myself lucky in witnessing the great peace demonstration
organized by the Flemish people. To all concerned in it I feel impelled to
call out in the name of men of good will with a care for the future: "In
this hour of opened eyes and awakening conscience we feel ourselves united
with you by the deepest ties."
We must not conceal from ourselves that an improvement in the present
depressing situation is impossible without a severe struggle; for the
handful of those who are really determined to do something is minute in
comparison with the mass of the lukewarm and the misguided. And those who
have an interest in keeping the machinery of war going are a very powerful
body; they will stop at nothing to make public opinion subservient to their
murderous ends.
It looks as if the ruling statesmen of to-day were really trying to
secure permanent peace. But the ceaseless piling-up of armaments shows only
too clearly that they are unequal to coping with the hostile forces which
are preparing for war. In my opinion, deliverance can only come from the
peoples themselves. If they wish to avoid the degrading slavery of
war-service, they must declare with no uncertain voice for complete
disarmament. As long as armies exist, any serious quarrel will lead to war.
A pacifism which does not actually try to prevent the nations from arming is
and must remain impotent.
May the conscience and the common sense of the peoples be awakened, so
that we may reach a new stage in the life of nations, where people will look
back on war as an incomprehensible aberration of their forefathers!
Letter to a Friend of Peace
It has come to my ears that in your greatheartedness you are quietly
accomplishing a splendid work, impelled by solicitude for humanity and its
fate. Small is the number of them that see with their own eyes and feel with
their own hearts. But it is their strength that will decide whether the
human race must relapse into that hopeless condition which a blind multitude
appears to-day to regard as the ideal.
O that the nations might see, before it is too late, how much of their
self-determination they have got to sacrifice in order to avoid the struggle
of all against all! The power of conscience and the international spirit has
proved itself inadequate. At present it is being so weak as to tolerate
parleying with the worst enemies of civilization. There is a kind of
conciliation which is a crime against humanity, and it passes for political
wisdom.
We cannot despair of humanity, since we are ourselves human beings. And
it is a comfort that there still exist individuals like yourself, whom one
knows to be alive and undismayed.
Another ditto
Dear friend and spiritual brother,
To be quite frank, a declaration like the one before me in a
country which submits to conscription in peace-time seems to
me valueless. What you must fight for is liberation from universal
military service. Verily the French nation has had to pay heavily
for the victory of 1918; for that victory has been largely
responsible for holding it down in the most degrading of all forms
of slavery. Let your efforts in this struggle be unceasing. You
have a mighty ally in the German reactionaries and militarists. If
France clings to universal military service, it will be impossible in
the long run to prevent its introduction into Germany. For the
demand of the Germans for equal rights will succeed in the end;
and then there will be two German military slaves to every
French one, which would certainly not be in the interests of
France.
Only if we succeed in abolishing compulsory service altogether
will it be possible to educate the youth in the spirit of
reconciliation, joy in life, and love towards all living creatures.
I believe that a refusal on conscientious grounds to serve in the
army when called up, if carried out by 50,000 men at the same
moment, would be irresistible. The individual can accomplish
little here, nor can one wish to see the best among us devoted to
destruction through the machinery behind which stand the three
great powers of stupidity, fear, and greed.
A third ditto
Dear Sir,
The point with which you deal in your letter is one of prime
importance. The armament industry is, as you say, one of the
greatest dangers that beset mankind. It is the hidden evil power
behind the nationalism which is rampant everywhere.…
Possibly something might be gained by nationalization. But it is
extremely hard to determine exactly what industries should be
included. Should the aircraft industry? And how much of the
metal industry and the chemical industry?
As regards the munitions industry and the export of war material,
the League of Nations has busied itself for years with efforts to
get this horrible traffic controlled--with what little success, we all
know. Last year I asked a well-known American diplomat why
Japan was not forced by a commercial boycott to desist from
her policy of force. "Our commercial interests are too strong,"
was the answer. How can one help people who rest satisfied
with a statement like that?
You believe that a word from me would suffice to get something
done in this sphere? What an illusion! People flatter me as long
as I do not get in their way. But if I direct my efforts towards
objects which do not suit them, they immediately turn to abuse
and calumny in defence of their interests. And the onlookers
mostly keep out of the light, the cowards! Have you ever tested
the civil courage of your countrymen? The silently accepted
motto is "Leave it alone and don't speak of it." You may be sure
that I shall do everything in my power along the lines you
indicate, but nothing can be achieved as directly as you think.
Women and War
In my opinion, the patriotic women ought to be sent to the front in the
next war instead of the men. It would at least be a novelty in this dreary
sphere of infinite confusion, and besides--why should not such heroic
feelings on the part of the fair sex find a more picturesque outlet than in
attacks on a defenceless civilian?
Thoughts on the World Economic Crisis
If there is one thing that can give a layman in the sphere of economics
the courage to express an opinion on the nature of the alarming economic
difficulties of the present day, it is the hopeless confusion of opinions
among the experts. What I have to say is nothing new and does not pretend to
be anything more than the opinion of an independent and honest man who,
unburdened by class or national prejudices, desires nothing but the good of
humanity and the most harmonious possible scheme of human existence. If in
what follows I write as if I were clear about certain things and sure of the
truth of what I am saying, this is done merely for the sake of an easier
mode of expression; it does not proceed from unwarranted self-confidence or
a belief in the infallibility of my somewhat simple intellectual conception
of problems which are in reality uncommonly complex.
As I see it, this crisis differs in character from past crises in that
it is based on an entirely new set of conditions, due to rapid progress in
methods of production. Only a fraction of the available human labour in the
world is needed for the production of the total amount of consumption-goods
necessary to life. Under a completely free economic system this fact is
bound to lead to unemployment. For reasons which I do not propose to analyse
here, the majority of people are compelled to work for the minimum wage on
which life can be supported. If two factories produce the same sort of
goods, other things being equal, that one will be able to produce them more
cheaply which employs less workmen--i.e., makes the individual worker work
as long and as hard as human nature permits. From this it follows inevitably
that, with methods of production what they are to-day, only a portion of the
available labour can be used. While unreasonable demands are made on this
portion, the remainder is automatically excluded from the process of
production. This leads to a fall in sales and profits. Businesses go smash,
which further increases unemployment and diminishes confidence in industrial
concerns and therewith public participation in these mediating banks;
finally the banks become insolvent through the sudden withdrawal of deposits
and the wheels of industry therewith come to a complete standstill.
The crisis has also been attributed to other causes which we will now
consider.
(1) Over-production. We have to distinguish between two things
here--real over-production and apparent over-production. By real
overproduction I mean a production so great that it exceeds the demand. This
m4y perhaps apply to motor-cars and wheat in the United States at the
present moment, although even that is doubtful. By "over-production" people
usually mean a condition of things in which more of one particular article
is produced than can, in existing circumstances, be sold, in spite of a
shortage of consumption-goods among consumers. This condition of things I
call apparent over-production. In this case it is not the demand that is
lacking but the consumers' purchasing-power. Such apparent over-production
is only another word for a crisis, and therefore cannot serve as an
explanation of the latter; hence people who try to make over-production
responsible for the crisis are merely juggling with words.
(2) Reparations. The obligation to pay reparations lies heavy on the
debtor nations and their industries, compels them to go in for dumping, and
so harms the creditor nations too This is beyond dispute. But the appearance
of the crisis in the United States, in spite of the high tariff-wall
protecting them, proves that this cannot be the principal cause of the world
crisis. The shortage of gold in the debtor countries due to reparations can
at most serve as an argument for putting an end to these payments; it cannot
be dragged in as an explanation of the world crisis.
(3) Erection of near tariff-walls. Increase in the unproductive burden
of armaments. Political in security owing to latent danger of war. All these
things add considerably to the troubles of Europe, but do not materially
affect America. The appearance of the crisis in America shows that they
cannot be its principal causes.
(4) The dropping-out of the two Powers, China and Russia. This blow to
world trade also does not touch America very nearly, and therefore cannot be
a principal cause of the crisis.
(5) The economic rise of the lower classes since the War. This,
supposing it to be a reality, could only produce a scarcity of goods, not an
excessive supply.
I will not weary the reader by enumerating further contentions which do
not seem to me to get to the heart of the matter. Of one thing I feel
certain: this same technical progress which, in itself, might relieve
mankind of a great part of the labour necessary to its subsistence, is the
main cause of our present troubles. Hence there are those who would in all
seriousness forbid the introduction of technical improvements. This is
obviously absurd. But how can we find a more rational way out of our
dilemma?
If we could somehow manage to prevent the purchasing-power of the
masses, measured in terms of goods, from sinking below a certain minimum,
stoppages in the industrial cycle such as we are experiencing to-day would
be rendered impossible.
The logically simplest but also most daring method of achieving this is
a completely planned economy, in which consumption-goods are produced and
distributed by the community. That, in essentials, is what is being
attempted in Russia to-day. Much will depend on what results this mighty
experiment produces. To hazard a prophecy here would be presumption. Can
goods be produced as economically under such a system as under one which
leaves more freedom to individual enterprise? Can this system maintain
itself at all without the terror that has so far accompanied it, which none
of us "westerners" would care to let himself in for? Does not such a rigid,
centralized system tend towards protection and hostility to advantageous
innovations? We must take care, however, not to allow these suspicions to
become prejudices which prevent us from forming an objective judgment.
My personal opinion is that those methods are preferable which respect
existing traditions and habits so far as that is in any way compatible with
the end in view. Nor do I believe that a sudden transference of the control
of industry to the hands of the public would be beneficial from the point of
view of production; private enterprise should be left its sphere of
activity, in so far as it has not already been eliminated by industry itself
in the form of cartelization.
There are, however, two respects in which this economic freedom ought
to be limited. In each branch of industry the number of working hours per
week ought so to be reduced by law that unemployment is systematically
abolished. At the same time minimum wages must be fixed in such a way that
the purchasing power of the workers keeps pace with production.
Further, in those industries which have become monopolistic in
character through organization on the part of the producers, prices must be
controlled by the State in order to keep the creation of new capital within
reasonable bounds and prevent the artificial strangling of production and
consumption.
In this way it might perhaps be possible to establish a proper balance
between production and consumption without too great a limitation of free
enterprise, and at the same time to stop the intolerable tyranny of the
owners of the means of production (land, machinery) over the wage-earners,
in the widest sense of the term.
Culture and Prosperity
If one would estimate the damage done by the great political
catastrophe to the development of human civilization, one must remember that
culture in its higher forms is a delicate plant which depends on a
complicated set of conditions and is wont to flourish only in a few places
at any given time. For it to blossom there is needed, first of all, a
certain degree of prosperity, which enables a fraction of the population to
work at things not directly necessary to the maintenance of life; secondly,
a moral tradition of respect for cultural values and achievements, in virtue
of which this class is provided with the means of living by the other
classes, those who provide the immediate necessities of life.
During the past century Germany has been one of the countries in which
both conditions were fulfilled. The prosperity was, taken as a whole, modest
but sufficient; the tradition of respect for culture vigorous. On this basis
the German nation has brought forth fruits of culture which form an integral
part of the development of the modern world. The tradition, in the main,
still stands; the prosperity is gone. The industries of the country have
been cut off almost completely from the sources of raw materials on which
the existence of the industrial part of the population was based. The
surplus necessary to support the intellectual worker has suddenly ceased to
exist. With it the tradition which depends on it will inevitably collapse
also, and a fruitful nursery of culture turn to wilderness.
The human race, in so far as it sets a value on culture, has an
interest in preventing such impoverishment. It will give what help it can in
the immediate crisis and reawaken that higher community of feeling, now
thrust into the background by national egotism, for which human values have
a validity independent of politics and frontiers. It will then procure for
every nation conditions of work under which it can exist and under which it
can bring forth fruits of culture.
Production and Purchasing Power
I do not believe that the remedy for our present difficulties lies in a
knowledge of productive capacity and consumption, because this knowledge is
likely, in the main, to come too late. Moreover the trouble in Germany seems
to me to be not hypertrophy of the machinery of production but deficient
purchasing power in a large section of the population, which has been cast
out of the productive process through rationalization.
The gold standard has, in my opinion, the serious disadvantage that a
shortage in the supply of gold automatically leads to a contraction of
credit and also of the amount of currency in circulation, to which
contraction prices and wages cannot adjust themselves sufficiently quickly.
The natural remedies for our troubles are, in my opinion, as follows:--
(1) A statutory reduction of working hours, graduated for each
department of industry, in order to get rid of unemployment, combined with
the fixing of minimum wages for the purpose of adjusting the
purchasing-power of the masses to the amount of goods available.
(2) Control of the amount of money in circulation and of the volume of
credit in such a way as to keep the price-level steady, all special
protection being abolished.
(3) Statutory limitation of prices for such articles as have been
practically withdrawn from free competition by monopolies or the formation
of cartels.
Production and Work
An answer to CederstrЖm
Dear Herr CederstrЖm,
Thank you for sending me your proposals, which interest me
very much. Having myself given so much thought to this subject I
feel that it is right that I should give you my perfectly frank
opinion on them.
The fundamental trouble seems to me to be the almost unlimited
freedom of the labour market combined with extraordinary
progress in the methods of production. To satisfy the needs of
the world to-day nothing like all the available labour is wanted.
The result is unemployment and excessive competition among
the workers, both of which reduce purchasing power and put
the whole economic system intolerably out of gear.
I know Liberal economists maintain that every economy in
labour is counterbalanced by an increase in demand. But, to
begin with, I don't believe it, and even if it were true, the
above-mentioned factors would always operate to force the
standard of living of a large portion of the human race doom to
an unnaturally low level.
I also share your conviction that steps absolutely must be taken
to make it possible and necessary for the younger people to take
part in the productive process. Further, that the older people
ought to be excluded from certain sorts of work (which I call
"unqualified" work), receiving instead a certain income, as having
by that time done enough work of a kind accepted by society as
productive.
I too am in favour of abolishing large cities, but not of settling
people of a particular type--e.g., old people--in particular
towns. Frankly, the idea strikes me as horrible. I am also of
opinion that fluctuations in the value of money must be avoided,
by substituting for the gold standard a standard based on certain
classes of goods selected according to the conditions of
consumption--as Keynes, if I am not mistaken, long ago
proposed. With the introduction of this system one might