The Lost Fruits of Waterloo 22

The Lost Fruits of Waterloo 22

Autocratic classes in society constitute still another obstacle to

peace. We have heard much on this subject of late, and some of the

things that have been said have been so ill-established in truth that

they must make the real autocrats smile. It will probably help us to

understand the situation if we undertake to enumerate the good things

an autocracy can do. For truth never profits by falsehood, and the most

autocratic people in the world have sense enough to know when they are

misrepresented.

 

Let us remember that under favorable conditions an autocracy is

composed of the more capable people in the community in which it

exists. They are more capable because they have been brought up most

carefully, that is, because they have the best trained minds. There is

no law of nature by which more fools are born in an aristocracy than

in a proletariat. In fact, the tendency is the other way; for since

the aristocrats are in a position to cultivate themselves in a given

generation, it is natural that a comparatively large portion of their

children shall be well endowed mentally. To this gift of nature add the

influence of better educational training, and you see how natural it

is to expect an autocracy to be stronger mentally than those who would

have to replace it if it were overthrown.

 

Again, an autocracy is not necessarily unpatriotic. Of course, it has

its own idea of what patriotism is, but so have the classes below the

autocracy. Its patriotism usually embraces an honestly held opinion

that the autocratic state is the best form of society. On this basis it

is willing to sacrifice much for the state. We see it putting “lives,

fortunes, and sacred honor” literally at the entire command of the

state. No man can do more than give his all for that which he holds

right.

 

An autocracy may be composed of men of the best private manners and

principles. They frequently include the best poets, historians,

novelists, philosophers, and teachers of the nation. It is they who

encourage art, and set standards of taste in architecture, landscape

gardening, and general culture. Compared with the leisure class of

a prosperous industrial country they may be more courteous, more

unassuming, and less given to offensive use of their wealth. They are

the kind of men whom any of us could love if we knew them personally.

These words do not, of course, apply to all members of the class, but

to the group as a whole in ordinary conditions.

 

Of the German autocracy most of these things can be said, and more.

It is a hard working group and generally speaking it is honest. In

the service of the state it has a record of efficient government that

few democratic countries can show. The officials of German towns and

cities, provinces and states, taken from the hereditary upper classes,

are well trained, faithful, and free from the suggestion of corruption.

It will take New York or Chicago many years to develop the state of

good government that exists in Berlin. Moreover, the German autocracy

has the respect of the German people.

 

Up to last winter the Russian autocracy was an obstacle to peace.

Many who looked forward to a reign of reason wondered how they were

going to make the theory work while the largest _Entente_ nation was

in the hands of an autocracy that was less tolerable than the German

autocracy. Fortunately, fate has settled the question, for the time

at least. So uncertain is the condition of affairs in Russia, that no

one can say what will be the outcome. It is by no means certain that

the peasants, workers, and soldiers, will not make actual war against

the former autocrats, leading to a state of chaos like the worst

phases of the French Revolution. If such a thing happens, a reaction

in favor of the former ruling class may well follow. If the war ends

before the newly established government is firmly seated in power some

such upheaval may be expected. Certainly the time of danger is not yet

passed.

 

The German autocracy is better than that which ruled Russia. In fact,

it would be less dangerous if it were less serviceable. Its sins are

not the patent sins of peculation, cruelty, laziness, or despotism. It

offends in that it takes away the confidence of nation in nation. It

offends because it is filled with unfortunate purposes. It is possible

to think of an autocracy that would be no menace for the peace of the

world, an autocracy filled with no ambition for world conquest. It is

true that most autocratic governments have not been of this kind, and

they seem militarists by nature, whence arise the ideals with which

they trouble the world.

 

When Hegel preached the philosophy of war that underlies the German’s

devotion to war, he was largely right from the Prussian standpoint.

He held that the mind becomes sluggish through inactivity and that

war burns up its waste matter and leads to energy of character. This

doctrine would not be essentially true in any normally organized

society; for there are as many opportunities for self-__EXPRESSION__ in

commerce, finance, manufactures, art, and other peaceful occupations

as in war. But a century ago Prussia was filled, even more than today,

with a mass of small nobles, unaccustomed to any ordinary form of

labor, and with slender incomes. They were just the class that would

fall into the effete vices of an aristocracy. To them the military life

was an avenue of steady and moral employment. They took places in the

great machine, and by 1870 they had been bred into its very spirit. The

process saved the German nobles from vapidity. At the same time, as a

class, they preserved their political privileges, and it has happened

that they, with their official heads, the kaiser, kings, and princes,

have been able to unite political power and military purposes until

they have made of their country the most military state of modern

times. If Germany has fought the present war with great ability, it is

the organized autocracy that deserves the credit.

 

It is, therefore, the union of the political and military power in

the hands of a privileged class in Germany that now constitutes the

greatest obstacle to peace. It enables a small and efficient portion

of the German population to wield the rest of the people for the ends

they have decided are best. If this union of functions could be broken

up, and if political power could be distributed as in the countries

governed by the people, the obstacle would be reduced in size. It is

not necessary to suppose that it would be removed altogether; for even

if equal suffrage were established in Germany, and if autocracy were

shorn of its preponderating electoral power, the nobles would still be

the most capable class in the empire. Their personality would go a long

way in perpetuating their influence. If they played the game of trying

to lead the people they might remain rulers of Germany for a long time

after losing their present electoral advantages.

 

It is fair to assume that a democracy will be less likely to go to

war than an autocracy. It is the middle and lower classes that bear

the chief burdens of war. They fight for no promotions. Generally the

happiest thing that can come to one of them is a disabling wound to

send him home with his head safely on his shoulders. Kings and their

sons are rarely killed in battle. When this war began the kaiser was

one of the proud Germans who had five tall sons of military age. After

nearly four years of fighting none of them have been seriously injured.

It would be interesting to know if there is another German father of

five sons who has been so gently treated by fortune. Report says that

fifty thousand schoolmasters were killed in Germany during the first

two years of the war. It would be interesting to learn whether or not

the titled class has given up so large a proportion of its members for

the cause of the Fatherland.

 

And yet, it must not be thought that wars cannot exist in democratic

countries. When Rome was a republic war was a constant thing. Athens in

her republican days had many wars. In the region that is now the United

States of America have been several wars. The war for independence was

essentially popular. It was organized by that part of the population

which resented British aristocratic institutions, the class we should

today call “the plain people.” In the civil war the demand that slavery

be destroyed did not come from the wealthy men of the North, the class

that stood for the American aristocracy, but from the middle classes,

men who filled the churches and who followed the common impulses of

the heart. It was resisted by the South, as democratically organized

as Germany would be with the Junkers turned out of power, and the

struggle was as bitter as any the world had seen up to the fatal year

1914. Democratic states can fight, and they do fight, but they are less

likely to go to war than autocratic states.

 

If it seems to any of us a necessary thing that autocracy must be

removed from the earth, it is well to remember that autocracy can be

removed only through the operation of a long and slow process. It can

be reduced by some great catastrophe, but it cannot be smitten out in

a day. Take away its political power, and perhaps its financial power

will be left. Undermine that by raising up a rich bourgeoisie, and its

social influence will perhaps still exist. You do not abolish it by

decree; you banish it only when you have substituted a better thing.

 

What force exists in Germany with which the autocracy can be

supplanted? Next to the radicals, a small faction at best, we have the

socialists, numerous enough to have great influence, but committed to a

theory of society which cannot be established until humanity has gone

through centuries of development in the principles of equality. Then we

find the national liberals, whose name is likely to mislead liberals

in other parts of the world. They would be called the stand-pat,

capitalistic portion of society in the United States, men who believe

first of all in the protection of their large interests. In the present

struggle they are committed to the Pan-Germany policy since it means

the expansion of markets for German wares. Next come the centrists,

Catholics in their primary interests, and fundamentally opposed to

the doctrines for which the socialists stand. Finally we come to the

conservatives, who believe in the autocracy. What magician can fuse

these parties into a solid movement for the establishment of really

parliamentary government?

 

Last obstacle of all that I shall mention here is the accumulated

machinery of war that has been built up in modern states. I do not

refer to ideas but to materials and men. Much has been written to show

that munition makers have deliberately fostered a belief in war, so

as to make a market for their products. Probably some exaggeration

exists in most of these arguments and statements. The Krupps and their

brethren have plausible grounds for saying that war is inevitable,

and that they serve it but do not promote it. But giving them as

much benefit of the doubt as they can expect, it must be true that

their very existence, and their fine application of science to their

business, have led states to count on war as a matter of course.

These great aggregations of capital have vast influence in political

circles. They have so many stockholders that they affect a large number

of influential men. So much are they committed to the cause in which