31
alliance of Russia with capitalistic France, and the accession of capitalistic England and America.
The Marxists get by their explanation into a peculiar position, for this reason also, that they themselves accept and support capitalism to a certain extent, rejecting only its exploitation. They recognise its economic productiveness and its superiority to the agrarian and other degrees of economic development.
Another variation of the explanations given by the Marxists is this: the war arose out of imperialistic capitalism. The Marxists say that imperialism grows out of the modern industrial capitalism: industry needs markets, raw materials, &c., therefore it subjugates colonies and agricultural countries.
The German, English and French industrialism and capitalism have managed to harmonise their interest for quite a long while, since 1871; on several occasions disputes threatening war were peacefully settled (Morocco, &c.). Only a few months before the war Germany concluded a very advantageous agreement with England and the other colonial states; why then did the war break out so suddenly? Industrialism and capitalism do not suffice to explain that. As far as imperialism is concerned, it has already been said that the term is used very ambiguously; the German imperialism does no doubt play a decisive role in the war, but it is not only capitalistic and industrial; it arose long before Germany became a capitalistic and industrial country. As far as colonial imperialism is concerned, it is sufficient to call attention to the fact that the occupation of the colonies has preceded by centuries modern industrialism and capitalism. Besides it is easy to prove that the foundation of colonies had other than merely industrial and capitalistic motives. Even during this war German economists and politicians were demonstrating that colonies did not pay, that on the contrary Germany had to make up an annual deficiency for her colonies; and comparisons of world-trade figures show that Germany exported to England and imported materials from England for her industry to an amount forty times as great as the business done with her own colonies. The Marxists give credit to the shrewdness of merchants and capitalists for being rather sharp at sums and they ascribe to them an unmilitary spirit—and suddenly these merchants are accused of being more anxious for war than Mars himself, and of being fools in addition!
All these Marxist explanations of the war are just as one sided and uncritical as the entire economic materialism and its philosophy of history, and therefore the official Marxist philosophy of this war is insufficient.
No one denies that economic interests play a great part in this war. We have become acquainted with Pangermanism, and know that its exponents emphasize Germany’s need for soil, raw material, cheap labor, &c. Perhaps every war was caused by a desire for material gains (bonna terra, mali vicini—I read in a mediæval chronicle), but the question is, whether economic interests in any war, especially in this war, are the only decisive motives.
Their materialistic view of life brought the Marxists in this war into a compromising association with the Pangermanists; members of the German majority socialists, Lentch, Renner (the Austro-German socialistic leader) and others cannot be distinguished from Pangermanists. It would not, however, be fair, if I did not recall the author of “J’accuse,” who realized the situation very early; and now Kautsky and Bernstein criticize very effectively the Marxist one-sided explanation of the war. In Russia Plechanov did not succumb to the war cries of the one-sided Bolshevism.
