| home | stands | games | about | mpjournal | back | links |
The importance of securing international peace was
recognized by the really great men of former generations. But the technical advances of our times
have turned this ethical postulate into a matter of life and death for civilized mankind to-day, and
made the taking of an active part in the solution of the problem of peace a moral duty which no
conscientious man can shirk.
One has to realize that the powerful industrial groups concerned in the manufacture of arms are
doing their best in all countries to prevent the peaceful settlement of international disputes, and
that rulers can achieve this great end only if they are sure of the vigorous support of the majority
of their peoples. In these days of democratic government the fate of the nations hangs on
themselves; each individual must always bear that in mind.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I am very glad of this opportunity of saying a few words to you about the problem of pacificism. The
course of events in the last few years has once more shown us how little we are justified in leaving
the struggle against armaments and against the war spirit to the Governments. On the other hand, the
formation of large organizations with a large membership can of itself bring us very little nearer
to our goal. In my opinion, the best method in this case is the violent one of conscientious
objection, with the aid of organizations for giving moral and material support to the courageous
conscientious objectors in each country. In this way we may succeed in making the problem of
pacificism an acute one, a real struggle which attracts forceful natures. It is an illegal struggle,
but a struggle for people's real rights against their governments in so far as the latter demand
criminal acts of the citizen.
Many who think themselves good pacifists will jib at this out-and-out pacifism, on patriotic
grounds. Such people are not to be relied on in the hour of crisis, as the World War amply proved.
I am most grateful to you for according me an opportunity to give you my views in person.
Preceding generations have presented us, in a highly developed science and mechanical knowledge,
with a most valuable gift which carries with it possibilities of making our life free and beautiful
such as no previous generation has enjoyed. But this gift also brings with it dangers to our
existence as great as any that have ever threatened it.
The destiny of civilized humanity depends more than ever
on the moral forces it is capable of generating. Hence the task that confronts our age is certainly
no easier than the tasks our immediate predecessors successfully performed.
The foodstuffs and other goods which the world needs can
be produced in far fewer hours of work than formerly. But this has made the problem of the division
of labour and the distribution of the goods produced far more difficult.
We all feel that the free play of economic forces, the unregulated and unrestrained pursuit of wealth and power by the individual, no longer leads automatically to a tolerable solution of these problems. Production, labour, and distribution need to be organized on a definite plan, in order to prevent valuable productive energies from being thrown away and sections of the population from becoming impoverished and relapsing into savagery. If unrestricted sacro egoismo leads to disastrous consequences in economic life, it is a still worse guide in international relations. The development of mechanical methods of warfare is such that human life will become intolerable if people do not before long discover a way of preventing war. The importance of this object is only equalled by the inadequacy of the attempts hitherto made to attain it.
People seek to minimize the danger by limitation of
armaments and restrictive rules for the conduct of war. But war is not like a parlour-game in which
the players loyally stick to the rules. Where life and death are at stake, rules and obligations go
by the board. Only the absolute repudiation of all war is of any use here. The creation of an
international court of arbitration is not enough. There must be treaties guaranteeing that the
decisions of this court shall be made effective by all the nations acting in concert. Without such a
guarantee the nations will never have the courage to disarm seriously.
Suppose, for example, that the American, English, German, and French Governments insisted on the
Japanese Government's putting an immediate stop to their warlike operations in China, under pain of
a complete economic boycott. Do you suppose that any Japanese Government would be found ready to
take the responsibility of plunging its country into such a perilous adventure? Then why is it not
done? Why must every individual and every nation tremble for their existence? Because each seeks his
own wretched momentary advantage and refuses to subordinate it to the welfare and prosperity of the
community.
That is why I began by telling you that the fate of the human race was more than ever dependent on
its moral strength to-day. The way to a joyful and happy state is through renunciation and
self-limitation everywhere.
Where can the strength for such a process come from? Only from those who have had the chance in
their early years to fortify their minds and broaden their outlook through study. Thus we of the
older generation look to you and hope that you will strive with all your might to achieve what was
denied to us.
Dear Professor Freud,
It is admirable the way the longing to perceive the truth has overcome every other desire in you.
You have shown with irresistible clearness how inseparably the combative and destructive instincts
are bound up with the amative and vital ones in the human psyche. At the same time a deep yearning
for that great consummation, the internal and external liberation of mankind from war, shines out
from the ruthless logic of your expositions. This has been the declared aim of all those who have
been honoured as moral and spiritual leaders beyond the limits of their own time and country without
exception, from Jesus Christ to Goethe and Kant. Is it not significant that such men have been
universally accepted as leaders, in spite of the fact that their efforts to mould the course of
human affairs were attended with but small success?
I am convinced that the great men--those whose achievements, even though in a restricted sphere, set
them above their fellows--are animated to an overwhelming extent by the same ideals. But they have
little influence on the course of political events. It almost looks as if this domain, on which the
fate of nations depends, had inevitably to be given over to violence and irresponsibility.
Political leaders or governments owe their position partly to force and partly to popular election.
They cannot be regarded as representative of the best elements, morally and intellectually, in their
respective nations. The intellectual èlite have no direct influence on the history of nations in
these days; their lack of cohesion prevents them from taking a direct part in the solution of
contemporary problems. Don't you think that a change might be brought about in this respect by a
free association of people whose work and achievements up to date constitute a guarantee of their
ability and purity of aim? This international association, whose members would need to keep in touch
with each other by a constant interchange of opinions, might, by defining its attitude in the
Press--responsibility always resting with the signatories on any given occasion--acquire a
considerable and salutary moral influence over the settlement of political questions. Such an
association would, of course, be a prey to all the ills which so often lead to degeneration in
learned societies, dangers which are inseparably bound up with the imperfection of human nature. But
should not an effort in this direction be risked in spite of this? I look upon the attempt as
nothing less than an imperative duty.
If an intellectual association of standing, such as I
have described, could be formed, it would no doubt have to try to mobilize the religious
organizations for the fight against war. It would give countenance to many whose good intentions are
paralysed to-day by a melancholy resignation. Finally, I believe that an association formed of
persons such as I have described, each highly esteemed in his own line, would be just the thing to
give valuable moral support to those elements in the League of Nations which are really working for
the great object for which that institution exists.
I had rather put these proposals to you than to anyone else in the world, because you are least of
all men the dupe of your desires and because your critical judgment is supported by a most earnest
sense of responsibility.
From a letter
Instead of permission being given to Germany to introduce compulsory service it ought to be taken
away from everybody else: in future none but mercenary armies should be permitted, the size and
equipment of which should be discussed at Geneva. This would be better for France than to have to
permit compulsory service in Germany. The fatal psychological effect of the military education of
the people and the violation of the individual's rights which it involves would thus be avoided.
Moreover, it would be much easier for two countries which had agreed to compulsory arbitration for
the settlement of all disputes arising out of their mutual relations to combine their military
establishments of mercenaries into a single organization with a mixed staff. This would mean a
financial relief and increased security for both of them. Such a process of amalgamation might
extend to larger and larger combinations, and finally lead to an "international police," which would
be bound gradually to degenerate as international security increased.
Will you discuss this proposal with our friends by way of setting the ball rolling? Of course I do
not in the least insist on this particular proposal. But I do think it essential that we should come
forward with a positive programme; a merely negative policy is unlikely to produce any practical
results.
Mutual trust and co-operation between France and Germany can come about only if the French demand
for security against military attack is satisfied. But should France frame demands in accordance
with this, such a step would certainly be taken very ill in Germany.
A procedure something like the following seems, however, to be possible. Let the German Government
of its own free will propose to the French that they should jointly make representations to the
League of Nations that it should suggest to all member States to bind themselves to the following:
(1) To submit to every decision of the international court of arbitration.
(2) To proceed with all its economic and military force, in concert with the other members of the
League, against any State which breaks the peace or resists an international decision made in the
interests of world peace.
Systematic disarmament within a short period. This is possible only in combination with the
guarantee of all for the security of each separate nation, based on a permanent court of arbitration
independent of governments.
Unconditional obligation of all countries not merely to accept the decisions of the court of
arbitration but also to give effect to them.
Separate courts of arbitration for Europe with Africa, America, and 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.
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.
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
coopération 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 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 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.
I
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.
II
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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?
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 there with 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.
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.
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.
An answer to Cederström
Dear Herr Cederström,
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 consent to a certain amount of "inflation," as compared with the present monetary
situation, if one could believe that the State would really make a rational use of the windfall thus
accruing to it.
The weaknesses of your plan lie, so it seems to me, in the sphere of psychology, or rather, in your
neglect of it. It is no accident that capitalism has brought with it progress not merely in
production but also in knowledge. Egoism and competition are, alas, stronger forces than public
spirit and sense of duty. In Russia, they say, it is impossible to get a decent piece of
bread.…Perhaps I am over-pessimistic concerning State and other forms of communal enterprise,
but I expect little good from them. Bureaucracy is the death of all sound work. I have seen and
experienced too many dreadful warnings, even in comparatively model Switzerland.
I am inclined to the view that the State can only be of real use to industry as a limiting and
regulative force. It must see to it that competition among the workers is kept within healthy
limits, that all children are given a chance to develop soundly, and that wages are high enough for
the goods produced to be consumed. But it can exert a decisive influence through its regulative
function if--and there again you are right--its measures are framed in an objective spirit by
independent experts.
I would like to write to you at greater length, but cannot find the time.
It seems to be a universal fact that minorities--especially when the individuals composing them are
distinguished by physical peculiarities--are treated by the majorities among whom they live as an
inferior order of beings. The tragedy of such a fate lies not merely in the unfair treatment to
which these minorities are automatically subjected in social and economic matters, but also in the
fact that under the suggestive influence of the majority most of the victims themselves succumb to
the same prejudice and regard their brethren as inferior beings. This second and greater part of the
evil can be overcome by closer combination and by deliberate education of the minority, whose
spiritual liberation can thus be accomplished.
The efforts of the American negroes in this direction are deserving of all commendation and
assistance.
The distinguishing feature of the present political situation of the world, and in particular of
Europe, seems to me to be this, that political. Development has failed, both materially and
intellectually, to keep pace with economic necessity, which has changed its character in a
comparatively short time. The interests of each country must be subordinated to the interests of the
wider community. The struggle for this new orientation of political thought and feeling is a severe
one, because it has the tradition of centuries against it. But the survival of Europe depends on its
successful issue. It is my firm conviction that once the psychological impediments are overcome the
solution of the real problems will not be such a terribly difficult matter. In order to create the
right atmosphere, the most essential thing is personal co-operation between men of like mind. May
our united efforts succeed in building a bridge of mutual trust between the nations!
Previous generations were able to look upon intellectual and cultural progress as simply the
inherited fruits of their forebears' labours, which made life easier and more beautiful for them.
But the calamities of our times show us that this was a fatal illusion.
We see now that the greatest efforts are needed if this legacy of humanity's is to prove a blessing
and not a curse. For whereas formerly it was enough for a man to have freed himself to some extent
from personal egotism to make him a valuable member of society, to-day he must also be required to
overcome national and class egotism. Only if he reaches those heights can he contribute towards
improving the lot of humanity.
As regards this most important need of the age the inhabitants of a small State are better placed
than those of a great Power, since the latter are exposed, both in politics and economics, to the
temptation to gain their ends by brute force. The agreement between Holland and Belgium, which is
the only bright spot in European affairs during the last few years, encourages one to hope that the
small nations will play a leading part in the attempt to liberate the world from the degrading yoke
of militarism through the renunciation of the individual country's unlimited right of
self-determination.