When Germany set out on her career of war and hoped-for conquest in 1914, she began with such magnificent organisation and with such fearful power of destruction that she left Britain and France for the time being far in the rear. But, fortunately, she did not succeed in bringing those nations to despair. On the contrary, a speedy recognition of the German superiority in organisation forced Britain and France to take immediate steps to meet the danger that threatened to overwhelm them, with the result that their counter organisation ultimately equalled, and even surpassed, that of the Teuton aggressor in a co-operation of effort that completely deprived the German of any temporary advantage he had in "hacking a way through" and in the man-killing line. It was a marvellous achievement, and it was only done by adopting in a very great measure German methods. The individualism which characterised our lives, and of which we have been so accustomed to boast, had to be dropped, and a large slice of Socialism had to take its place. It is the socialised organisation of Germany that has given her her immense strength in this war, and that made her no great a power in the manufacturing, business, and industrial world that she was fast relegating other nations to the distant background. That was the German peril in peace, and she has not, and most probably will not, lose her organised efficiency after the war, even after an unsuccessful war, no that the German peace peril will still remain, when, just as the army of soldiers in 1914 responded to the will of the Kaiser, so will the German army of efficiently-trained, highly-organised workers of all kinds respond in peace to his will, or the will of whatever Government is in his place.
The individual German led, on the whole, a happy life. He had to work longer and for smaller pay than the individual Britisher, but he was more easily satisfied than the latter. He had his "panen et circenses" in plenty, and could enjoy them at his ease. His Government was strict, but paternal. He rather enjoyed the strictness as long as the Government's paternalism was shown in taking care of him and his family. He had a share in the gains of civilisation, but he enjoyed little dignity or personal freedom. The soldier or policeman was constantly at his elbow. The warning "Verboten" (forbidden) met him on every hand; but he did not mind as long as his daily needs were well attended to. He was more efficient in his work than the men of other nations, because he was forced to undergo better and stricter training. He was not an individual, he did not want to be. A well-oiled cog in a wheel of a mighty, world-shadowing machine was all he desired to be, and all he ever was. Politics did not trouble him. His idea of politics coincided prac tically with that of the Kaiser and the great land-owning junker aristocracy. So he considered it right that a few chosen men should govern, and that the great mass of the people should loyally, humbly, and servilely obey and look up to these rulers with awe, fear, and veneration. With him government was not for the people (except to the extent of training them and keeping them fit for work and war) nor by the people. It was right to have government of the people by a fortunate few—for this fortunate few—who should have all the power with all the advantages power brings. Therefore, political freedom, freedom of speech and of the Press and the right of public assemblage was not recognised in Germany; but the German—with exceptions, of course—was quite satisfied. The conception of a state that Germany gave the world is not a high or a noble one, and would not suit a Frenchman, a Britisher, or an American, but as far as the German race is concerned, the idea has been successful in producing efficiency, comfort, and worldly prosperity, if not in giving dignity and nobility of manhood. Still the other nations of the world can, and ought, to take a lesson from the marvellous results State Socialism has produced in the Fatherland. It is, indeed, a paradox that the most despotic mode of government in Europe (next to that of Turkey) is accompanied by a most extensive and successful method of State Socialism, a Socialism, however, in which tho masses of the people have no control, for the Germans believe in the complete subordination of the individual to the State. As once said the French King, "L'etat' c'est moi," so a German Emperor says, and believes, "I am the State," and is so fccepted by the German people.
In Germany not only are the railways owned by the State, but also the interior waterways, the mines and mineral resources are so owned, and they are managed in the most up-to-date business manner for the good of the community. There is no favoritism shown. No one city gets better treatment than another. Neither is there any centralisation — no attempt to form one huge overgrown city at the expense of the rest of the country, the municipal Socialism of the cities of Germany sees to that—so that everything works for the prosperity of the nation as a whole. The system of transportation, too, is so efficient as to be almost perfect —quite different to the crude methods to which we are accustomed. The cities of Germany, ruled generally by business men, carry Socialism even further than the State itself, for practically every public utility is under the control of the municipalities. The tramways are owned by the cities, and are well managed without regard to dividends. Fares consequently are low; also gas and electric lighting are municipally owned. The municipalities buy land and build houses for persons desiring these, and, thus do the work of building societies. They own banks, maintain opera-houses, theatres, concert halls, etc., in which the best productions are heard at comparatively low cost. Art galleries and museums are maintained by the cities, and they also furnish colleges and academies, own municipal orchestras and excellent bands, give free lectures, entertainments, etc., and generally control the leisure life and amusements of the people, as the State controls their work. One result is that the cities are beautified and are constantly being improved, rendered healthy and made free from the obnoxious features that characterise so many of the big cities of Britain, Australia, and America. An American author, Mr Fred C. Howe, United States Commissioner of Immigration at the port of New York, writes in a work on Germany, recently published:—
"Business men assume the burdens of direct taxation with surprising willingness. They impose progressive income taxes, often rising to 10 or 15 per cent., for all purposes upon their incomes. They impose taxes on business, land, and the unearned increment of land values. They burden their cities with indebtedness to make them beautiful and healthy, and spend generously for education and other purposes. They regulate property for the good of all and the protection of posterity. They build and plan for the future with a big vision of the city, as does no class in any of the cities of the world." This is an attractive picture of municipal management which we wish could be painted in regard to our own cities. With this and similar pictures of results of State and municipal Socialism in Germany we may understand why the German is so willing to fight for the Kaiser and an aristocracy that trample on his political rights and openly regard him as an inferior animal to be well cared for because he is useful to provide all that conduces to their pleasures and luxuries. It is not only the Kaiser for whom he shows patriotism; it is for the Fatherland that looks after him with such paternal care, and which his government-ridden Press tells him is in danger of being crushed by an organised conspiracy of uncultured foreign nations.
The great Junker class of aristocratic rulers have not interfered with the Socialistic experiment of Germany, for, like the British aristocracy of a century ago, they despise trade and commerce, and, living on their estates almost as the ancient feudal barons, they are satisfied to allow the German masses to be comfortable as long as their own inordinate privileges are not threatened. All the great offices in the army, navy, diplomatic service, etc., belong to them, so that the people are completely subordinated to them. Consequently the same benevolence that the good-natured and wise slave owner of the Southern United States of America displayed towards his slaves for the purpose of getting the best out of them has been shown the German proletariat by his great Land-holding, aristocratic rulers. Nevertheless, the German Government has looked after the masses—looked after their health, comfort, amusement, and physical well-being. We fear the same cannot be said for the Government of any of the Allies now in arms against her. The lesson is being learned, however, and it is to be hoped it will be thoroughly learned, and be productive of good results after the war. If in two and a half years the Allies could catch up and surpass in organisation and efficiency of effort in war a nation that had been organising for it for more than a quarter of a century, surely they can equal and improve on her methods of government in peace, and give to their peoples the advantage that Socialised Germany possessed, without destroying that individuality which is the characteristic of the British race.
Ballarat Courier (Vic. : 1869 - 1883; 1914 - 1918), Saturday 21 July 1917, page 2
No comments:
Post a Comment