or a Frenchman, under Clemenceau, says: "I am justified, and, indeed, it is my duty as a Socialist to defend my country if it is invaded by an enemy"; he reasons not as a Socialist, not as an Internationalist, not as a revolutionary proletarian, but as a bourgeois nationalist. For this reasoning leaves out of sight the revolutionary class-struggle of the workers against capitalism, and abandons all attempt at appraising the war as a whole from the point of view of the world-bourgeoisie and the world-proletariat; that is, discards Internationalism and adopts a miserable and narrow-minded nationalist standpoint. My country is being invaded, all the rest does not concern me—this is what such reasoning amounts to, and this is why it is bourgeois-nationalist narrow-mindedness. It is the same as if somebody, confronted by an individual outrage, were to reason: Socialism is opposed to outrage; therefore I prefer to be a traitor rather than to go to prison. The Frenchman, the German, or Italian who says: "Socialism is opposed to outrage on nations; therefore I defend myself when my country is invaded"—this man is betraying Socialism and Internationalism, since he only thinks of his own country, places above all his bourgeoisie, without reflecting upon the international connections which make the war an Imperialist war, and his bourgeoisie a link in the chain of Imperialist brigandage. All Philistines and "yokels" reason just like these renegades, the Kautskys, the Longuets, the Turatis: "My country is invaded and I do not care about anything else."[1]
- ↑ The Social-Chauvinists (the Scheidemanns, Renaudels. Hendersons, Gomperses) refuse altogether to talk about Internationalism during the war, and regard the enemies of their respective bourgeoisies as "traitors to Socialism." They are in favor of the predatory policy of their respective bourgeoisies. The Social Pacifists, on the other hand, that is, thse who are Socialists in words and bourgeois pacifists in practice, proclaim all sorts of internationalist sentiments, protest against annexations, etc., but in pratice continue to support their respective bourgeoisies. The difference between the two types is not profound. It is like the difference between the two capitalists—one with rude, and the other with sweet words on his lips.
( 75 )
