Page:Karl Kautsky - Georgia - tr. Henry James Stenning (1921).pdf/98

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.

The military training of the Guard was zealously fostered, but the troops did not develop a military spirit. The people's Guards in the barracks remained the same Social-Democratic proletarians as they were outside it, and their interest was occupied, not by military, but by social questions.

The General Staff has formed two sections; one for education and one for agriculture. The former takes care of the continued education of the guards, the increase both of their civil knowledge and of their technical capabilities. The other section pursues agricultural activities, upon some large estates, which are put at its disposal.

The Austrian Popular Militia also contains an educational section, but the agricultural section is a special feature of the Georgian Guard. This undertaking is not to be confused with Russian compulsory labour. The Georgian organisation signifies the civilising of militarism, but the Russian organisation is the militarising of civil work. In the People's Guard, the workers who would prefer to be outside the army, are not subjected to military discipline, which would compel them to undertake specific work; but soldiers who would otherwise stay in barracks without occupation are provided with the opportunity of breaking the monotony of an unproductive existence by useful and various activities. Only experience can show whether the Guards can do more productive work on these large estates than as private workers, but even if this should not be the case, they will certainly be able to. reduce the cost of their maintenance.

The large estates, cover a part of the requirements of the Guards. We have here a very interesting experiment, the extension of which deserves serious consideration. Its maintenance and successful accomplishment in Europe might lend a more reasonable and tolerable aspect to the enormous European armies. It is not a specially socialistic measure; it could be accepted by any middle-class government, but if this were done,

96