Showing posts with label after 1920. Show all posts
Showing posts with label after 1920. Show all posts

Friday, 31 July 2026

SOCIALISM FACES THE WORLD

 — —

MINORITY PHILIPPICS CHALLENGE PARLIAMENTS

 PREPARING FOR THE FASCIST STATE

(By SOLOMON BRIGG)

(NO. 22.)


Whether it hurts the forces of the left or the forces of the right, it must be said that one of the most dangerous tendencies in the development of the modern political institution is the growth of parties committed to a revolutionary programme of minority dictatorship based on force, representing the negation of Parliamentary democracy.

Australian Labor has definitely rejected such a programme, confident that it can, and will, proceed to its objective through the utilisation of the constitutional machinery available.

But it would be unwise to blind ourselves to the decided menace to our national welfare that threatens us in the immediate future from forces who are even now glorifying force as a permissible sanction to deny the will of the people once that will is expressed against the predatory institutions that sponsor such organisations.

The most negligible of the two parties committed to such a programme is the Communist Party. A motley crew of immature visionaries, half-baked doctrinaires, Mensheviks, preening pedagogues and credulous dupes who believe the fascinating romances of Arcadian bliss, ignorant of the fact that their own conditions even in these bitter days are incomparably better than those yet achieved by the working class in the Soviet Union, they have not yet learnt the penetrating truth of Bernard Shaw's crushing comment: "Communism is a tremendous extension of government, and consequently a great encroachment upon liberty."

As a potential force capable of establishing a revolutionary dictatorship based on force in Australia, their efforts are at best humorous. Ever ready to embarrass a workers' Government by staging public demonstrations, reiterating Capitalist propaganda and waxing bold with loud-mouthed claptrap against those who are trying to make some advance against the castle of privilege, they show their teeth on occasions, knowing full well that the tolerance of Labor and its knowledge of their real strength or weakness, will ensure them license. But as soon as an anti-working class Government assumes office they scurry for cover at the very suggestion of a blue uniform, and no longer do they stage "mass" demonstrations against the Government, lavishing money on amplifying equipment supplied by wealthy combines. They remain underground until the next Labor Government is established as a sniping target for their operations.

As a meal ticket to the Sane Democracy League and other "loyalty" rackets, their avowed revolutionary doctrines are invaluable, but it is not from this source that the revolutionary minority Government threatens. This menace comes from a far more insidious foe to our accepted adherence to political freedom.

The real danger is to be found in the tenets and technique of Fascism, which likewise establishes itself on the principle of minority dictatorship and finds the Communist Party a convenient stalking-horse against organised Labor. In Australia it is evident that the earlier crude Fascist organisation is being supplanted by a more elaborate and subtle approach, which includes a process of suborning responsible working-class officials to betray their trust, aided by a propaganda offensive on a hitherto undreamt of scale, in order to effect the necessary purging of leaders whom the Fascist International regards as standing in its path.

That the technique being employed is not indigenous to Australian Fascism we learn from a study of Count Nitti's volume entitled "Bolshevism, Fascism, and Democracy" tracing the growth of this cancer. Nitti, as Prime Minister of Italy, was a Gladstonian Liberal, but his study is at least authoritative and written at first hand.

 Newspaper Tasks

One of the most significant of the stages leading up to the precipitation of the devil's cauldron is that played by the Press. "We find Conservative journals," says Nitti, "written apparently by reactionaries of the old school and others which, though they dare not glorify violence as a system of government in a free country, yet glorify and defend it in those countries where it flourishes. Even in free countries we see the falsest principles restored to a place of honor; the worship of force; the cult of the national State as the ruling factor in social life; contempt for Parliaments, sometimes concealed, sometimes openly proclaimed. These are the principles of former absolutism more or less disguised."

During the past two years respectable, aye, ultra-respectable, Australian dailies in their editorials have committed the very crimes here described by Nitti as the prelude to Italian Fascism.

Grossly distorted accounts or Parliamentary debates, calculated to bring that institution into disrepute and thereby facilitate its destruction, have been regularly featured in certain of the pseudo-respectable organs of "public opinion," while foreign-born advocates of the "corporate State," instead of being hounded by the Crimes Act, find themselves featured prominently in the news columns. In addition as lecturers before "loyalty" organisations, these "stunt" orators, University Professors and even politicians have had their services eagerly sought to foretell the collapse of the Parliamentary system. Discourses on the new revolutionary science are regarded not merely as theoretical surveys of current politics, but rather as practical expositions of the new "way out."

To preach the revolutionary doctrines of Communism is a crime; to preach the revolutionary doctrines of Fascism is the royal road to becoming a social lion, a Press hero, and to be welcomed as a valuable adjunct to the local organisation that is being built up against the Australian Parliamentary machine.

"There are Red minorities which constitute a menace," declared Nitti "Indeed, they arouse opposition among the workers themselves, and stand little chance of prevailing.

But they frequently serve as a reason or excuse for the organisation of White minorities, which meet with an indulgent welcome and receive support, direct or indirect, among the richer classes, and especially those whom the war has enriched."

It was here that Fascism obtained its subsidies, and he quotes one magnate who made a fortune trading with the enemy, who "supported, advised and stimulated every reactionary movement, whilst he subsidised a corrupt Press."

It was in this atmosphere that the Nation State, with its narrow motive of narrow nationalism, a programme of force, exaltation of war and aiming at hegemony over all other nations, had its origin. The Junkers of Germany, the Chauvinists of France, the Fascists of Italy, subsidised by the huge armament firms and acting in accordance with instructions from the international bankers, are concrete expressions of the one social-political idea — the negation of freedom and democracy.

With violence as its primitive modus operandi, nationalism embraces not only the intolerant subjection of its own nationals, but the more disturbing economic policy of imperialism, with territorial aggrandisement involving the annexation of colonies, and the exploitation of labor and the introduction of the modern feudal system— regulated through the scientific application of usury— by the exaction of excessively high rates of interests upon fictitious loans granted to "develop the colonies." 

A Timely Reminder

The partition of the Northern Territory of Australia between two British capitalistic concessionaires, as proposed by the catastrophic Lyons Government, is a timely reminder that the nineteenth Century concept of Imperialism is not yet dead and that whenever economic Imperialism in abroad it will always employ the time-honored methods of suppression and exploitation. The proposed charters provide for the alienation of millions of acres along the same lines as huge areas of Canada were ceded to the Hudson Bay Company and the Canadian Pacific Railway.

Freedom to administer the concession through their own boards, exemption from tariffs and ordinary taxation, enjoyment of the advantages of governmental services supplied by the taxpayers of the Commonwealth, and power to determine their own labor conditions — similar clauses operated with the British East India Company and every other chartered colonial exploitation by the same groups of private capitalists. Under the new vision of the Fascist State, this technique of a phase best forgotten is to be revived.

But to us, examining the position from the analytical viewpoint of the scientific diagnosis of modern social-political tendencies, the warning to be found in this latest development is rather that it synchronises with the re-birth of narrow nationalism.

Fascism is the visible evidence of this renaissance of sordid materialism, bringing with it the exploitation of whatever unhappy people happen to come under its domination. For the National State to flourish Parliamentary democracy must be ruthlessly extirpated. So when the Lyons Government refuses to initiate any action against disloyal elements in the community advocating minority dictatorship— or, as they express it, "Government by commission "— and deliberately refuses to take cognisance of the fact that the leader has been openly consulting the most dangerous men in Europe, then the Lyons Government is exposing this country to a far graver evil than the Communist Party will ever present.

Fascism, however, is not an end in itself. The huge subsidies being paid into its coffers by armament firms, by the International bankers, and by the wealthy industrialists, are not furnished because these groups are more fervent admirers of the intellectual, philosophical, or social implications of the theory of nationalism. They are seeking dividends, and they realise that the "open sesame " to such dividends can be found in the quickest possible manner, under modern social conditions through the denial of freedom and democracy.

 No Intellectual Basis

So the growth of Fascism is no mere exotic creation inspired by the desire of a majority of the people for fundamental changes. It must be engrafted on the body politic, and, involving as it does, the negation of freedom, regards violence as the speediest route to the achievement of its purpose.

The principal weapons are thus forged in the mills of hate, disruption and subversion of the higher concepts of government. Fascism has no intellectual basis; it lacks even the inverted Hegelian approach of material dialecticism as a philosophical background; while its economic theories are anti-social.

Founded on materialistic cynicism, it presents an exterior of patchwork design, appealing to all the baser elements in the community. The reactionary purpose of exploitation of all in the community except the "inner group" subsidising the movement, including invariably Press barons and high military authorities in addition to the select group mentioned above, is effectively concealed behind a hybrid policy designed to stir up internal sectional hate and bigotry.

So we find the facile embryo dictators embracing the most irreconcilable economic principles as their avowed tenets of political faith. Even its central orientation of nationalism is international. The master technicians manipulating the puppets are the international bankers.

Anti-Semitism, clericalism of the most extreme mediaeval type, the harassing of the Roman Catholic people, militarism, bureaucracy, suppression of free thought, the cultivation of universal suspicion, the promulgation of absolutism as the guiding principle of monarchism, the establishment of a dictatorship, the promotion of the authoritarian idea —such is the confused jumble that comprises Fascism. Any means deemed expedient to promote internal disorder and factional dissension are prescribed by these charlatans in the manner that inane strikes and futile demonstrations are promoted by the Communists.

 The One Objective

Mussolini suppresses Freemasonry; Hitler drives Judaism and Roman Catholicism to the wall; Moseley launches his philippics against trade union officials — although the weapons differ, the objective is the same. The negation of freedom, democracy, and peace can only be attained if internal chaos reigns, so the agents-provocateur must be employed to secure that state as speedily as possible.

Obviously these campaigns must be financed, and once a reformist or revolutionary movement shows signs of affluence, then it is time to take serious notice. When trusted leaders, officials, and members of executives recant upon lifetime principles; when former democrats become featured as martyrs to their cause in the capitalistic Press; when journalists and other technical assistants of a people's movement suddenly "see the light," then no ordinary movement is afoot in the State.

To create the requisite atmosphere for a crisis requires, above all else, skilful financing. Newspapers must be rigorously controlled from the central bureau to ensure that the correct psychological impressions are formed, so that when the move is made to replace the parliamentary machine with a dynastic and authoritarian dictatorship there will be the least possible opposition.

Mercenary journalists prepared to prostitute their talents must be employed to compile handbooks of procedure, arrange publicity, and write articles enunciating the new doctrines with a sugar coating. Above all else, a demagogues must be secured, an adventurer and charlatan with the technique of the American chatauqua, a theatrical poseur able to mouth empty shibboleths to persuade the people to accept the reign of terror with the minimum opposition.

Such is the background of Fascism.


Labor Daily (Sydney, NSW : 1924 - 1938), Saturday 22 July 1933, page 9

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/236577845


Monday, 6 July 2026

BARBARISM AS AN IDEAL

 An Examination of a Tendency in World Affairs

By S. M. Melamed, in the “Reflex”

The age old barbardom, which for centuries lay fettered and hidden beneath the rigorous forms of an old culture, is now awakening again, at a time when the cultural process has been completed and that of civilisation begun—that bellicose, virile joy of one’s own strength which only holds in contempt the rationalistic thinking of the epoch which is satiated with literature—that unbroken instinct of the race which wishes to live differently than under the pressure of studied books and theoretical ideals.—Oswald Spengler, “Hours of Decision,” p. 12.

No other generation in the western world has witnessed as many transvaluations as our own. They are of world historic significance not because they jeopardise economic, political and social systems or theological concepts, but because they affect man’s very soul. The startling political events of our time are but the accompanying phenomena of deep spiritual transformations. Many of our most ingrained convictions and deep-rooted beliefs, which grew out of a long and slow evolutionary process, are being destroyed before our very eyes. The speed with which these startling developments have taken place has so anesthetised the Occidental that but few people understand their historical significance. Neither the rise of Christianity, the destruction of the Roman Empire, nor the French Revolution can be compared in significance with the startling drama now being enacted here before our eyes.

The change in the form of government of a great nation is not necessarily a world historic event. Even a new spiritual allegiance of a people need not change the rhythm of the world historic process. But when the conception of man as a spiritual being and as the central figure of life is ruthlessly attacked and he is reduced to a purely economic atom, as in Marxist Russia, or to a purely zoological creature, as in Racial Germany, humanity is faced with the startling drama now being enacted here before our eyes.

For thousands of years the foremost representative of Occidental culture ought to impress upon man that he is the meaning and goal of all life. Religion pictured him as the crown of creation and as the highest peak in the cosmic process. In the making of man, so the religious myth of the Bible goes, God almost exhausted His creativeness. Although fashioned out of dust, man is not a part of nature only but partakes of the divine spirit. In the figure of the Redeemer, the idea of man’s close relationship to God finds its most powerful expression.

While religion placed man above brute nature by emphasising his relationship to God, philosophy stressed his spirituality. In foregoing his desire, in modifying his urge and in overcoming his instincts, in order to help his fellow man, man rises above nature and attains true humaneness. This doctrine of man was most impressively pronounced by Socrates and Plato. Forgotten during the Middle Ages, it was given new life by the Renaissance and Reformation and held sway until the World War.

In the plastic arts, too, the appreciation of man’s position in life found its expression in the glorification and idealisation of his figure. The great artists of classical antiquity and of the Renaissance were captivated and inspired not by the phenomena of brute nature but by suffering, aspiring and thinking man. This tendency only reflected the spirit of these respective periods.

It was this concept of man as the central figure of life, and as the crown of creation, which made modern culture possible. He created science in order to free himself from nature; he formulated jurisprudence in order to free himself from the natural instincts and urges of his fellow man; he invented ethics in order to free himself from evil; he conceived politics in order to safeguard his liberty and happiness, and he developed economic and social forms in order to free himself from want. In all his efforts, endeavours, and struggles, he was primarily animated by one desire—to preserve his spiritual individuality. Whether believer or heretic, he was inspired by the thought that he was the crown of creation.

II

“Man is a beast. I will repeat it again and again. All the moralists and social ethicists who seek to escape . . . are only beasts with broken teeth.” Such is the ethical doctrine of Oswald Spengler, the greatest German intellectual figure since the days of Nietzsche, as formulated in his latest book. “Hours of Decision” (p. 14). This conception of the beast-man is an extension of Schopenhauer’s will-man and Nietzsche’s blonde beast. That man is not a creature made in the Image of God but only a part of brute nature has become the basic conviction of Marxist Russia, Caesaric Italy, and Racial Germany.

Birth, marriage, and death, the most solemn moments in man’s career, have become of trivial significance in Soviet Russia. Burial is a profane and prosaic act as unsentimental as the disposal of any other worn out mechanism. Marriage is a matter of mere registration and birth a purely animal process. In Fascist Italy, the Government seeks to increase the population so that the cannon fodder of the country be increased. The quantity producing rabbit and the quality developing horse are the symbols and sources of inspiration of this policy. The Italian is taught to think in purely zoological terms upon the most important phenomenon of life. In Nazi Germany the new formula for the birth of a child is “Das Weib Gebirt das Tier" (“The woman gives birth to the animal”). Marriage and birth have not been profaned and secularised in Italy and Germany for reasons of political expediency, but the general tendency is no different than that of Russia.

It is no mere coincidence that in these three countries in which man has been deposed from his pedestal and reduced either to an economic atom or to a zoological creature that the sciences of man, with jurisprudence as their focal point, have been practically abolished and eliminated. The old systems of jurisprudence have been done away with and the new “systems” are merely expressions of the changing moods of arbitrary despots. Not basic laws and juridic principles, but arbitrary decrees prompted by expediency, caprice or ambition or malice are the corpus juris from which justice is drawn. The reintroduction of the torture chambers in Italy, Germany and Russia, as well as the summary executions of mere suspects of political opposition or resentment, testify best to the complete abrogation of the rights of man in these countries. Animals and mechanisms have no right. Since in these countries man is only considered to be beast or machine he cannot be the subject of rights, but like all other things he can only be an object of law.

III.

The most striking feature of the neo-barbaric world concept is its vehement rejection of reason and intellect. The social, political and economical degradation of the scholar and savant in Russia, Italy and Germany is only an expression of a powerful anti-intellectual tendency which originates in emotional mysticism. Even in Russia, with its artificial rationalisation of life and its adoration of applied science, only the Marxist scientist is tolerated. In all three countries the freedom of the mind and its accompanying attributes, such as intellectual honesty, sincerity, and idealism, are considered to be the contemptible legacies of decadent liberalistic and rationalistic regimes which must be uprooted. The position of men of the spirit, such as poets, artists, scientists, religionists, philosophers and scholars, is almost comparable to that of the lower castes of India. Not intellect, but will, not mind, but physical energy, not spiritual, but robust virility, is the standard of cultural life.

In Russia all professional men with the exception of engineers are most exploited by and receive less consideration from the State than any other group. It is almost unknown for working men not to be paid on time, whereas physicians, teachers, and laboratory workers often must wait months for their meagre wages. And when they do receive their wages they cannot buy nearly as much with them as can other groups. But worst of all they are regarded as potential political heretics and are treated accordingly. In Italy, the hotbed of intellectual individualism since the days of the Renaissance, every teacher from the grade school to the university is expected to teach a minimum and preach a maximum. He must constantly bring the message of Mussolini the Redeemer to his pupils. In Germany the granting of academic diplomas is predicated upon at least six months service in a labour camp. When Max Planck, the dean of German science, came to Hitler to plead for his colleagues who were deprived of their positions, he was told that ‘‘scientists being fools should not interfere in matters of the State but should mind their own affairs." As late as May 1934, Dr. Joseph Goebbels, Minister of Enlightenment, in an article in his paper, "Der Angriff,” said:—

“. . . the intellectuals are an idle and generally worthless lot and in our age which demands real men they are merely in the way,”

And further he says:-—

"The intellectuals are failures and have fallen down at all decisive moments. And now when a simple labourer, an ordinary front soldier, has succeeded in making himself the leader of Germany, they are simply dying of envy and wounded self-conceit.”

It was therefore entirely consistent when some two weeks later Herr Zander, director of schools in the Berlin-Brandenburg province, proposed that the time devoted to the three R's in grammar school be reduced one-third, and that the time thus saved be devoted to physical training.

This contempt for intellectuality and its representatives finds its justification and explanation in the denial of man and in the deification of the State. Only the State has reason and it is omniscient. Consequently the mind of the individual must be subservient to that of the State, and its refusal to do so may forfeit the individual’s right to exist. Such was also the guiding principle of the Inquisition—believe or be killed!

IV.

The profound contempt for human reason so characteristic of the neo-despotism is the cultural legacy of the German Romantic School of Philosophy. Oswald Spengler is the latest powerful tremor of this tendency in German cultural life. His major opus, “The Decline of the West,” is not so much a new philosophy of history as a panegyric to the irrational, emotional, and mystic side of human life. Rationalism to him is akin to original sin. It is the source of all human aberration, the embodiment of all decadence, the clearest symptom of cultural degeneration and the agent which spells ruin to the virility of life. Rationalism to Spengler includes every manifestation of the Western mind of the past 300 years—Puritanism, Idealism, Materialism, and Romanticism. He rejects Rousseau as well as Kant, Voltaire as well as Holbach, Owen as well as Marx. They are all guilty of the crime of attempting to introduce a definite order into life and seeking to divert world history into a definite channel. All the great mottoes of modern times, such as freedom, equality, historical progress, the happiness of the greatest number, and the like, are sheer demagoguery, for human history is only war history. Hence the doctrine of and the will to international peace is an attempt to violate the . . historical process.

The unadulterated historical process manifests itself with elemental force and sweeps aside the artificialities created by the various rationalistic schools. The highest spiritual reality is not knowledge, but the religious myth. The ancient motto, “I believe because it is absurd," testifies to realistic understanding of the world. The highest political reality is the power of the great conqueror who heralds the coming of a new culture. Hence liberalism and democracy are signs of degeneration. Whenever the masses raise their heads culture is doomed, for only the great individual, privileged with unrestricted freedom, is the source of all culture. The highest social reality is the lord of the manor, the nobleman. It is he who gives life its form and colour. The domination of the myth, conqueror and nobleman form the higher order, and that of reason, masses and peace form the lower order. At present, the lower order prevails, and its continuance spells the inevitable destruction of our present culture and civilisation, says Spengler.

This deep-seated attraction to the mythical and repulsion from the rational expressed itself in Spengler's construction of the philosophy of history. All cultures are distinguished from one another by definite border lines which cannot be crossed. The ancient Babylonian culture had nothing in common with the Hindu or Chinese and the Arab had nothing in common with the Germanic. All these cultures arise within a certain landscape upon which they flourish, decay, and die like living organisms. Occidental culture, having been weakened and undermined by rationalistic rust, is about to collapse. The only culture visible on the horizon, capable of replacing the dying culture of the West, is the Russian. That the latter is overwhelmed with Marxistic rationalism which he elsewhere pronounces to be the embodiment of decadence, does not deter him from visualising a glorious coming Russian culture. For not that he hates rationalism less, but that he loves the mailed fist more. The complete suppression of democratic rule in Russia, the permanent degradation of reason, the absolute domination of the subjugator, and the idealisation and worship of might, appeal powerfully to Spengler’s romantic senses.

There is something sadistic in Spengler's conception of political history just as there is something fatalistic and arbitrary in his conception of the philosophy of history. When the masses are chained, oppressed, maltreated, tortured, and whipped by the rod of the despot, it is the normal order of things, but when they are free and happy and masters of their own destiny, history is moving with seven league boots towards catastrophe. When reason prevails, science flourishes, and life moves along an even keel, decadence is already to be seen on the horizon. But when the mind is enveloped in myth, and culture is only the privilege of the few, life attains its highest peak. If this Spenglerian doctrine is valid, Occidental history of the past three centuries is only an uninterrupted, typographical error of destiny.

There is nothing universal in man’s culture, says Spengler. All the great cultures have their own truths, logic, science, art, etc., which have no meaning or value to any other culture. A great culture is a spiritual individuality which absolutely excludes and denies any other personality. Modern man would be no worse off if the civilsations of classical and Oriental antiquity had never existed, for the languages and symbols of each culture can be understood only by its own period and people.

This cultural determinism bordering on fatalism is no less theology than is the economic determinism of Marxism. The great cultures of history, far from being encased in Chinese walls, actually empty into one another. Thus modern man derived his geometry from ancient Egypt, his foundations of algebra from the Arabs, his philosophy and art from ancient Greece, his jurisprudence from ancient Rome, his religious world picture from ancient Palestine, etc.

This theory of isolated cultures has many implications. Its presumptions are first a denial of one humanity, second, a division of the human race into aristocratic and non-aristocratic peoples, and third the supremacy of blood over mind. These presumptions have no foundation in fact. As a matter of fact all men are governed by the same laws of the mind. The history of science, philosophy and religion are replete with instances of simultaneous but independent discoveries by men of different cultures. Thus the atomic theory was discovered contemporaneously in ancient India and in ancient Greece. The conception of one God was also evolved simultaneously in ancient Egypt, Judea, and China. Gunpowder and glass were developed in China and in Europe independently of one another. Nothing, however, testifies more powerfully to the oneness of the human consciousness than the history of numerals which were developed independently of one another in all the ancient centres of civilisation.

Nor is the second presumption of aristocratic and plebeian peoples and cultures to be accepted without qualifications. Spengler’s own countryman, Felix von Luseban, one of the greatest anthropologists of modern times, completely denies the existence of superior and inferior peoples. So do those savants such as Montesquieu, Taine, Buckle, Darwin, and Lamarck, who maintain that the environment primarily gives a people its character and creativeness. Thus far, Spengler as a scientist has not discovered any concrete facts which may make the theories of his adversaries obsolete.

The same may be said of Spengler’s third presumption of the supremacy of blood over mind. Here again another great countryman of Spengler, Goethe, who was also a great scientist in his own right, maintained that the human mind cannot lay bare the innermost secrets of nature. Whether and how blood influences mind ethnically man has no means of discovering. All that man can detect is that the environment influences the mind, especially in art, religion, and science.

 The cultural clannishness with its absolute lines of demarcation of Spengler is only a glorified form of barbarism. Every barbarian considers the members of every other tribe to be the enemy which must be annihilated. The barbarian delights in the gleaming sword and the mailed fist and worships the conqueror. He surrenders to his instincts and is guided by his emotions, and when in quest of food, shelter, etc., his conduct is indistinguishable from that of the beast. But it is in these very manifestations of man's urges, instinct and emotions that Spengler sees the height of life and the source of all creativeness. His entire philosophy thus becomes a pæan to barbarism.

V.

The history of Western Europe coincides and is interlinked with the history of Christianity. Since the destruction of the Roman Empire, the great spiritual and artistic movement of Europe, whether mystical or rationalistic in form, was deeply anchored in the Christian world picture. It is only since the middle of the 18th century that the representatives of the natural and social sciences began to disregard Christian thought, although many of them continued their adherence to the church. By the beginning of the 20th century the representatives of the science were sharply divided into two camps —religious and anti-religious. This is especially true of Germany, where the Monistic Society represented the anti-Religious and the Kepler Society the religious groups. This division, although it stirred the educated groups, did not affect the masses. Not the onslaughts of science upon religion but those of Marxism estranged a great part of the city populace from the church, which now became not anti-religious but simply non-religious. Even in the Marxist camps defenders of religion were not lacking.

It was only with the rise of Nazidom that an anti-Christian wave swept the country. As early as 1921 the life of the priests in the villages of Catholic Bavaria began to become uncomfortable. In the large cities the representatives of Christianity became objects of attack and derision. Even the figure of Christ was subjected to scorn and humiliation. Hundreds of thousands of vociferous Nazis, jingoists, extreme nationalists, racialists, and neo-pagans suddenly discovered that Christianity is a foreign plant which has been sown upon German soil, and that Jesus was only a son of a foreign people which can never fathom the German mind. This anti-Christian movement won such adherents as General von Ludendorff, who served to legitimate this tendency in the eyes of the populace. It gained in strength in proportion to the success of National Socialism. When the latter finally triumphed, a bold attempt was made not only to dechristianise the church, but to introduce in its stead Germanic paganism of old. The figure of Jesus, symbolising meekness, piety, charity, and goodness was considered to be suitable only for slaves. A powerful and dominating people like the Germans require the inspiration of Wotan, who radiates might, energy, bellicosity, and severity.

This anti-Christian, pagan movement which assumed such ugly forms was fathered by Friedrich Nietzsche and Oswald Spengler. Nietzsche was the first to teach the Germans that Christianity is slave morality, which was born out of a rebellion of slaves against lords. His ideals of the blonde beast and of the superman were incompatible with the basic concepts of Christianity. “The Christian God Concept,” he says in his “Anti-Christ,” “God as the God of the sick, God as a spider, God as spirit, is one of the most corrupt God concepts that has ever come upon this earth.” In thus declaring war against Christianity, Nietzsche called into being those latent heretic forces which began to spread with the industrialisation of Germany.

But Oswald Spengler, even more than Nietzsche, has contributed to the development of the anti-Christian movement in Germany. In describing Christianity as a phenomenon of the so-called Magian or Arabic culture, which died with the rise of the German culture, Spengler impressed upon his country men that Christianity is not only a strange plant upon German soil, but actually belongs to a lost and petrified world. Preferring the world of action to the world of the spirit, Spengler sides with Pilatus and not with Jesus. World history is a realm of action and not of dreams, of facts and not of sentiments. "Since Christianity represents the second it must be rejected.

Spengler’s “Decline of the West” was read and accepted by millions of his countrymen in the Fatherland. Coincident with the spread of Spenglerism, such anti-Christian publicists of previous generations as Ludwig Feuerbach and Max Stirner, experienced great revivals. So charged was the German air with anti-religious sentiments that Fritz Mauthner’s monumental “Atheism and its History in the West,” in four large volumes totalling 2,200 pages, ran through five editions in five years. So was the ground prepared in German literature, philosophy, theology, and historiography for the growth of pagan tendencies culminating in Nazi religious profaneness and barbarism.

In the cities of the English speaking world one very seldom finds such streets as Hume Street, Beacon Street, Milton or Shakespeare Avenue. But in Germany every city and town has its Goethe Strasse, Schiller Strasse, Kant Strasse, Hegel Strasse, Fichte Strasse and Schopenhauer Strasse. The memory of almost every German poet, scientist, philosopher and artist of note is perpetuated for the populace by streets named after him. No other country in the West has as many statues in bronze and marble erected to its great representatives of the spirit. The people considered the men of the spirit to be the true heroes of the nation, holding them in greater esteem than conquerors, warriors and statesmen. Every German took pride in his being associated with the "people of poets and thinkers." The respect for intellectual achievement or even for mere intellectual occupation is traceable to the influence of Immanuel Kant, Germany's greatest philosopher, who made reason the source of all reality. His philosophical theories created social values in Germany by making the intellectual the centre of social life. Just as no popular meeting in England can be successful unless graced by the presence of a prince of the blood, so could no popular meeting in Germany be of importance unless addressed by an outstanding intellectual. For over a hundred year the intellectual was the axis of social life in Germany, until the Nazis rose to power and decreed that the intellectual was a superfluous being who contributed nothing to German strength and might. From the present hostile attitude towards the intellectual in Germany, one can readily appreciate the great position he must have held in former days. The startling anti-intellectual movement culminating in the worship of ignorance and vulgarity is the product of a slow historical process which has but recently come to a head. One need only page the major works of German poetry and philosophy of the last generation to appreciate that the German attitude towards life was undergoing a radical change. Since Nietzsche's battle cry of the transvaluation of values, even his adversaries began to adopt a critical attitude towards the old order and old concepts. In the first decade of the 20th century, there was already visible in German thought a growing enmity towards the values of the nineteenth century, viz., intellectualism, mechanism, historicism, and all those life concepts which spring from a rationalistic understanding of the world. By 1930 German poetry and German philosophy reflected an ever growing irrationalism and mysticism. In the 19th century the motto of cultured Germany was reason—in the 20th century it was life. Not concepts but instincts, not ideas but urges, not definitions but sentiments are now considered to be the sources of truth. In modern German philosophy figures like Wilhelm Dilthey, Nicolai Hartmann, Friedrich Grave, Mueller Freienfels, and Oswald Spengler give powerful expression to this tendency. This forte chord in German contemporary spiritual life became fortissimo at the end of the war, when the Germans realised that great world historic decisions are made not by superior thought but by superior deeds. The cult of reason was transformed into the cult of instinct.

This anti-intellectual tendency was not confined to Germany alone. In Russia, where intellectual life was less developed than it was in Germany, but where, nevertheless, the representatives of the spirit were held in high esteem, a new attitude towards the old values became noticeable at the conclusion of the abortive revolution of 1905-06. This revolution was engineered in large measures by the intellectuals and academic youth. Some of them, like Gorki, Audrieff and Trotsky were notable figures in Russian letters. The entire Socialist Revolutionary party deduced its programme of action from purely intellectual theories. The failure of their revolution compromised the faith of the Russian youth in intellectualism. Almost overnight a swing from intellectualism to mysticism, and from rationalism to sensualism took place. The hitherto esteemed Russian classics of Dostoievsky and Tolstoy were relegated to the background, and Artzibaskeff, the author of the highly pornographic novel “Sanine,” became the literary hero of the day. Not spiritual depth or intellectual truth but urges and instincts became the ideal.

From 1906-14 one of the main tasks of the Russian Minister of Education was to suppress sexual orgies in the secondary schools of the country. Within a very short time the idealistic clan of the Russian youth vanished and paganism became the order of the day. Might became the greatest object of adoration, and the great man was identified with the powerful man.

This demoralisation of Russian life, culminating in the figure of Rasputin, enabled a determined group of Bolshevists to ride into power and to maintain it ever since. So did the manifestation of purely psychological forces pave the way for paganism and barbarism in important European centres.

That this neo-paganism in central and eastern Europe which has degenerated into economic and political barbarism is not a mere caprice of history can best be seen from the reception which Spengler’s “Decline of the West” has received in these countries. In Germany alone over 300.000 copies of this work were sold during the first six years after publication. In Austria it received the greatest popular reception since Weininger's “Sex and Character” appeared in 1906. It was read with equally great gusto in Hungary, Russia and Italy. Only in France, England and America did it fail to impress the reading public, and was politely rejected in all these countries.

Oswald Spengler, the apostle of the new Caesarism, has impressed himself upon peoples who were vanquished either politically or psychologically. Their defeat developed in them a veritable hunger for might. In power they saw their only salvation. To attain it, it was necessary to transvaluate life from reason to will, from intellect to instinct, from idea to urge. Guided by these forces, the order of the jungle settled upon the major part of the European continent. Barbarism became the ideal.

Australian Jewish Herald (Melbourne, Vic.), Thursday 17 December 1936, page 5

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/260975975/29158516#


Monday, 21 April 2025

THE TURMOIL OF INDIAN POLITICS

 The problem of India has been for the last five or six years second only in importance to that of Ireland in the eyes of British statesmen. It was believed that, as Mr. Montagu was regarded as a Zionist of liberal political tendencies, he would favourably impress the Indians, and would be able to withdraw them from the path of non-co-operation by reconciling their aspirations with the amount of freedom England would be prepared to grant. The appointment of such a man ten years or fifteen years ago might have worked wonderfully towards the continuance of British rule in India ; as it was, Mr. Montagu took office too late, and had a heartbreaking task in view of the extension of the non-co-operative movement led and directed by Ghandi. He was instructed, or rather permitted, to introduce reforms along certain lines at a time when the Indians had decided that they wanted change along a totally different line. It is somewhat similar to the position in Ireland in 1919, when the British Government (after fighting and suppressing Home Rule since O'Connell's days) tried to thrust it on the Irish when they themselves had conceived a different and a nobler ideal, and were bent on its attainment. The fatal words, "Too late," to quote Lloyd George, seem to sum up the external politics of England under all administrations since Gladstone's time.

 Montagu, the Jew, was dismissed on some pretext, so slight and so palpably "framed up" as to be quite frivolous. His forced resignation took effect just as the Prince left India, and there followed closely the sentencing of India's national hero and leader. The cumulation of so many mistakes in tactics suggests a complete reversal of policy at Downing street, and a return to the old plan of ignoring the inhabitants, or, at the best, hectoring them. '"There is nothing," says Belloc, "so unfortunate as to be born a native;" and this has always been the superior and not even kindly attitude of the India office. Our interpretation of Mr. Montagu's retirement is that he refused to agree to the prosecution of Ghandi, and expressed himself as opposed to the infliction of any penalty on the Nationalist leader. What happened in the Cabinet was either that the conservative method of treating India triumphed, or that some past administrator, such as Lord Curzon, accomplished the fall of Montagu out of personal jealousy and pique. The usual long story about the publication of a dispatch has been given to the public; the real story is well beyond our reach. One of the most annoying features of the Indian question is the manifest censorship which is being exercised over the news sent to the outside world from Delhi. If we are returning to the compulsory silences and suppressions of the ghastly lustrum, 1914 to 1918, it is clear that war, openly or tacitly, is being declared on the mass of Indians who have accepted the propaganda of non-co-operation and the lead of Ghandi. . . . Mr. Montagu's vision may have been, from the point of view of the Indians, somewhat limited, but, at any rate, he had progressive ideas as regards self-government for India, and he was not hampered by the ordinary English prejudices against the East. British rule will not prosper by his fall.

 Freedom depends not so much on the material possessions or economic potentialities of a people, as on their mental state. Keep the mind free and independent, self-reliant, and even defiant, and you are not far from the achievement of liberty. Once let the mind accept bondage and remain compliant under it, there are no depths to which a people may not sink; and any return to a state of freedom becomes infinitely difficult and painful. There is no doubt that for a long time Indian inferiority was accepted by the natives. The "slave mind," to use a phrase of Arthur Griffith, became a commonplace, and on it was built the theory of the ability of far-off England to govern those countless millions. The caste system keeps great sections of the people from having any dealings with one another, and that; naturally, was used to their disadvantage.

 For a long time no word of revolt was heard from India. But it could clearly be seen by men of historical knowledge that the Indians, with their immemorial culture and their scholarship of at least two thousand years, would never definitely accept the sway of a power that had no new thing to teach in literature, or philosophy, or, art. . . . . The old centres of learning, twice as old as Oxford and Cambridge, would never accept any theory of the intellectual inferiority of India. Then came the troops of Indian students to the Universities of England and to her Inns of Court: they not only competed with the English students, but easily vanquished them at their studies. It would be impossible for these men to go back to their people and peacefully accept the domination of the men with whom they had successfully crossed swords in the examination halls. We must observe, moreover, that there was no inducement for them to stop in England or any of her oversea possessions, since in those places they were looked on as social inferiors on account of their colour. The intellectuals are the Ă©lite of the army of peaceful revolutionaries, who aim at securing control of their country by their campaign of non-co-operation.

 We have remarked in these columns before that the only chance which the British Empire has of lasting for a further span of time is to grant to all its component parts the measure of freedom which they desire, or at least a great part of that measure. Any measure short of independence would thus be granted to a country in rebellion or agitation. These tactics have been followed in Ireland and in Egypt. We foretold that they would be seen in England's dealings with India, and then suddenly comes the news of Mr. Montagu's dismissal, and, much more unfortunate, the tidings of Ghandi's imprisonment. The patriot's work and life will doubtless continue as a source of example and inspiration to millions of his countrymen, who will cherish and safeguard the ideals for which he is suffering.

Advocate (Melbourne, Vic.), 23 March 1922 http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article171062768

Friday, 4 April 2025

THE FETTERS ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE

 ————

Hot Bricks at Geneva

BY HARTLEY WITHERS,

 THE DISTINGUISHED ECONOMIST.

An article on International Finance by one of Britain's Greatest Experts on financial and commercial matters, published by special arrangement.

It is now some years since the late Dr. Walter Leaf expressed the opinion that Europe was heading for economic suicide owing to the tariff policy which has been prevalent there since the War. As a scholar and a banker Dr. Leaf was one accustomed to weigh his words carefully, and he made this statement in his capacity as Chairman of the International Chamber of Commerce in order to call the attention of public opinion to what he believed to be the probable consequences of the policies which the Governments of the various countries of Europe were pursuing.

 Not long after there appeared the famous "Bankers' manifesto" which was unhappily so described since it was signed by a large number of distinguished gentlemen who were not bankers, but were prominent in industry and commerce. It stated that there can be "no recovery in Europe until politicians in all territories old and new realise that trade is not war, but a process of exchange, that in time of peace our neighbours are our customers, and that their prosperity is a condition of our own well being. If we check their dealings, their power to pay their debts diminishes and their power to purchase our goods is reduced. Restricted imports involve restricted exports and no nation can afford to lose its export trade. Dependent as we all are upon imports and exports, and upon the processes of international exchange, we cannot view without grave concern a policy which means the impoverishment of Europe."

 Since then, as we all remember, there was a great economic conference at Geneva which talked very eloquently round the subject of the hindrances to trade which are imposed in greater or lesser degree by all the leading Governments of the civilised world, in a mistaken endeavour to increase the prosperity of their countries by restricting their commercial activities. At the same time, the Council of the League of Nations set up a consultative Committee of the International Economic Organisation of the League to follow the application of the Economic Conference recommendations, and it held its first meeting in the week beginning on the 14th May. The chief purpose of this first session was to examine the work which had already been accomplished in carrying out the recommendations of the Economic Conference. Its counsels were assisted by a memorandum in the form of a "Green Book" drawn up for its guidance by the Economic Organisation of the League summarising the actions which had already been taken to put into practical effect the measures recommended by the Conference. As quoted by 'The Times" of 14th May, it began its summing up of the general situation by saying: "The tariffs actually in force at the present date appear to be on the whole higher than those in force when the Economic Conference met in May 1927." 

 At first sight it would, therefore, appear that the practical effect of Dr. Leaf's warning, the Bankers' manifesto, and the Economic Conference of last year, has been rather less than nothing, and this is, in fact, the conclusion that most people will be inclined to draw from the facts so bluntly stated in the Green Book. It goes on, however, to comfort us by saying that in May 1927 a number of new tariffs were under consideration by various Governments and Parliaments, which were much higher than the tariffs hitherto in force, and that the tariffs actually adopted are, on the whole, considerably lower than those then proposed.

 It thus appears that such is the craving of human nature to restrict its own trade activities by keeping out foreign goods, that the tariffs which were heading Europe for economic suicide, and have, in spite of the Economic Conference been made rather more efficient since it sat, would, if it had not been for the impression produced by the Conference, have been higher still. If this is all the comfort that can be administered to those who want to see the prosperity of Europe, which is so important to the prosperity of all the world, not only restored to its former level but carried up to the much more elevated heights it is capable of reaching, the outlook for European recovery does not appear to be particularly promising; and the discussions at the meeting of the Economic Committee, in so far as they were summarised by the inevitably abbreviated telegrams sent from Geneva, give rather the impression not of a determined effort to face a serious problem, but of the delicate hesitation of a number of tenderfooted cats trying to walk over a floor of hot bricks.

 It is satisfactory to note that the English representatives distinguished themselves by plain and serious speaking. Sir Arthur Balfour, while admitting that the results of attempts to remove trade barriers were rather disappointing and that a good number of increases in tariffs had taken place since May 1927, thought that the suggestion of a tariff holiday was not enough. It was not, in his opinion, sufficient merely to stabilise the present level of tariffs. The fact that, in order to produce greater prosperity it is essential to lower tariffs, does not seem to be sufficient argument for refusing to entertain the suggestion that at least their further raising should be stopped for the time being but Sir Arthur, in his desire to avoid too general and ambitious methods, suggested that it might be possible, instead of dealing with tariffs as a whole, to sub-divide them into their constituent industries and to try to reduce tariffs industry by industry. This ingenious suggestion appeared to meet with general approval, Mr. Pugh another English representative, was more outspoken in expressing his disappointment at the way in which the various Governments had treated the various resolutions of the Economic Conference, saying they had only paid lip service to it, and Mr.. Walter Layton, the Editor of the "Economist", proposed a series of resolutions, one of which embodied a request that the upward movement of tariffs should cease so as to give a favourable atmosphere for the discussion of reduction. This apparently was asking for too much. M. Serruys, who throughout had adopted an attitude of great caution, stated that Mr, Layton's proposal attempted to go too fast and too far, maintaining that the Economic Committee of the League could not order Governments not to touch their tariffs pending their deliberations.

M. Loucheur, who has held high political office in France, went so far as to contend that the only effect of reducing tariff barriers would be to transfer unemployment from one country to another, thus apparently questioning the whole purpose for which the Economic Conference had been appointed. His line of argument is one, however, which is commonly followed by less distinguished exponents of international trade problems. It leaves out of consideration the important fact that goods cannot be imported into any country unless some equivalent in value is exported in order to pay for them. If we imagine the example of a country which we will call Ruritania, which has built up a textile industry behind a high tariff wall with the result that all its inhabitants pay much higher prices for a bad article, and that the export trade of Ruritania is restricted because the textiles which used to come in from abroad are now manufactured at home—if Ruritania then reduces its tariff on textiles, manufacturers of the countries which can make them cheaper and better, will come in, all the Ruritania consumers of textiles will get better articles more cheaply, and the Ruritania exporters of commodities which Ruritania is especially well qualified to produce, will find a freer market for their products. So far from transferring unemployment from one country to another, the reduction of tariffs would at the same time give the consumer a reasonable chance of getting good articles such as he used to enjoy before the War. But as long as false patriotism blinds us with the delusion that it is wrong to buy foreign goods there is little hope for real prosperity in international trade.

Papuan Courier (Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea), 3 August 1928

http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article251065157

Wednesday, 2 April 2025

EUROPEAN LIBERALISM

 AN ESSAY IN INTERPRETATION BY PROFESSOR LASKI

"The Rise of European Liberalism," by Harold J. Laski. Published by George Allen and Unwin, London.

LIBERTY OF THE INDIVIDUAL

IN the nineteenth century the dominating idea in the political and social thought of the period was the doctrine of the liberty of the individual. Political freedom was sought to be attained by democratic institutions, economic liberty by the restriction of State interference in industry. In general it was considered that not merely was the general welfare best attained by allowing a maximum of freedom of action to individuals, but that individual liberty of action and thought was a value in itself, something to be sought for its own sake. In medieval times no such doctrine prevailed. Authority was the keynote of the period. Freedom of thought and action was strictly controlled by the dogmas of revealed religion and the moral code of Christianity. In modern times the pursuit of economic gain is regarded as an allowable and even praiseworthy end in itself, but in medieval times the economic interest of the individual was subordinated to consideration of the general welfare. Men lived within an economic order in which the effective social institutions, whether church or state or guild, judged economic activity by criteria derived from outside itself. Material utility was not accepted as a valid justification of economic behaviour. Heaven was man's destination, and his activities in this world were controlled accordingly. Hence competition was controlled, commerce was forbidden on religious grounds prices and the rate of interest were fixed, wages and hours were regulated, and speculation was, within wide limits, prohibited. But in the sixteenth century these medieval ideas began to give way to the habit of thought and system of ideas that are known as liberalism, and the question is, why did they do so?

 PENETRATING ANALYSIS.

 IN his essay, Professor Laski seeks to supply an answer to this question. To his task he brings qualifications which are possessed by few if any other writers of the present day. Not only is he an accomplished historian, but he is also a political philosopher with an encyclopaedic knowledge of the political writings of the period under consideration: indeed he almost irritates at times by the copiousness of his familiar allusions to writers of whom most people have never heard. The result is a profound and penetrating analysis of the fundamental ideas of liberalism, and of their relation to the historical evolution of the last four centuries. Professor Laski sees in liberalism an ideology invented to justify the methods and the predominance of the commercial class which gradually came to power in the period following the Renaissance and Reformation. Seeing the opportunities which lay before them to take advantage of the new geographical and technological discoveries, merchants and manufacturers rejected the traditional ideas which would have hampered them in their pursuit of gain, and asserted the right of the individual to free enterprise in the acquisition of wealth. They challenged the right of absolute monarchy to rule independently of their consent, thus evolving the doctrines of political liberty, and they next denied the right of the State, however controlled, to interfere with the economic freedom of the individual in the pursuit of gain, thus laying down the doctrine of laissez faire. In place of a society resting on status they substituted one the basis of which was freedom of contract between individuals. They persuaded themselves further that the freedom of the individual to pursue his own personal gain would promote the general welfare of society.

 THE DOCTRINE OF LIBERALISM.

 THUS Professor Laski sees liberalism as fundamentally a doctrine intended to secure to the middle classes their right to property and their right to pursue individual gain. Its more idealistic exponents did not of course limit its benefits to the middle classes, but Professor Laski lays stress on the fact that in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries the founders of liberalism refused to extend their theories to cover the working classes in cases where middle class interests might be affected. Thus they energetically rejected the claim of the working classes to participation in the government of the State, and they denied them the right of combination against employers (which alone could give them equality of bargaining power) as being an infringement of the liberty of contract between employer and employee. In the end they were prepared to grant political rights to the working classes, but only on the understanding that rights of property were not to be interfered with — it probably never occurred to them that such rights would be questioned. Now that they are being questioned, Professor Laski notes a disposition on the part of the middle classes to throw overboard their liberal doctrines in favour of Fascism and similar anti-liberal theories. This supports the thesis that liberalism was intended to maintain middle-class interests. 

THE LONELY FURROW OF THE IDEALIST.

 HOWEVER, the thesis is one from which many people will violently dissent. They can point out that John Hampden was not a business man, and that many of the aristocracy fought against Charles I. They can point out that Quesnay, who founded the French school of Physiocrats, who propounded the doctrine of freedom of trade, was not a trader but a court physician. There is no doubt that John Stuart Mill when he wrote of liberty had much more in mind than to make the world safe for capitalists. And so on. But ideas have a habit of being carried further than their origin necessitated, and their extensions are accepted so long as they do not conflict too strongly with their essential basis. The notion of individual liberty is one which may well arouse the enthusiasm of a John Stuart Mill, and economic liberalism had practical advantages and triumphs which might easily persuade a man of its value even though he was not engaged in commerce himself. But theories do not gain general acceptance unless they meet the needs of a large and important class, and the idealist will plough a lonely furrow unless his ideas are such that the practical man of affairs can use them to further his own self-interest. An example was given above of how the doctrine of liberalism could be applied to maintain the position of the middle classes against other classes. On the whole Professor Laski's view would seem to be incontrovertible, and his essay constitutes a masterly analysis of the basis of the dominating political thought of the last four centuries.

W.N.H.

Telegraph (Brisbane, Qld.), 29 July 1936 http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article181911415

Saturday, 29 March 2025

THE PRICE OF FREEDOM.

 Vigilance and Faith in Democracy

Professor Laski's Warning

"The essential duty of British Socialists at the present time is to work for the conquest of a Parliamentary majority in a straightforward, constitutional way," says Professor Harold Laski, in a special article in the London "Daily Herald."

THE collapse of democratic systems in the post-war world has naturally tended to weaken the faith of all students of politics in both their validity and staying power.

Certainly nothing is gained from concealing from ourselves that they confront a crisis of the gravest magnitude, and that no realistic observer can doubt the profundity of the challenge they encounter.

But it is one thing to admit this; and it is quite a different thing to assume that the case for parliamentary democracy should be allowed to go by default.

Socialists, of all people, have the obligation to recognise the solid advantages it represents over most of its alternatives, and the justification they have for defending it as, so far in our experience, the surest path available to the conquest of political power.

A country which abandons Parliamentarism does so under conditions that involve a revolution either of the Left or of the Right.

In the former circumstance both the approach to and the maintenance of the revolutionary government depend upon conditions unlikely of realisation save in the aftermath of unsuccessful war.

European Examples.

This has been the experience both of Russia and Germany, and the strength of organised government in the Allied countries stands in striking contrast.

It would be folly to throw away the solid prospects we confront for an alternative that might well destroy the prospects of democracy in the next generation.

This, of course, applies not less to the idea of force used on behalf of reaction. The use of it is possible and in that event, no doubt, we should be ruled, in our special English fashion, by a Fascist dictatorship.

But only economic prosperity would justify this adventure to the masses ; and in the ill-will it would encounter we are entitled to doubt whether that prospect is even thinkable.

Major Disasters.

Were it to occur, every Socialist ought to realise from Continental experience that, compared with the habits of a Parliamentary system, this would be a major disaster. It would end trade-union freedom; it would destroy liberty of the press; it would destroy the prospect of any Socialist propaganda save in an obscure and underground form.

Almost certainly the masses would pay the price of its establishment by the loss of all social legislation passed in the last generation.

The whole effort of such a regime, as in Italy and Germany, would be to consolidate the powers of the propertied classes at the expense of the workers.

Experience Teaches.

The experience of Italy and Germany makes it clear:

(i) That this consolidation can, in terms of modern administrative technique, be very rapidly effected, and

(ii) That it can postpone the prospect of successful assault upon itself for a considerable period.

Duty of Socialists.

I believe, therefore, that the essential duty of Socialists at the present time is to work for the conquest of a Parliamentary majority in a straight-forward, constitutional way. Once that majority is obtained, it is their duty to use it for fully Socialist purposes, and if challenged to protect its right to such a use by all the means at its disposal.

It seems to me clear that such an attitude is far more likely to secure the purposes of Socialism than any alternative strategy.

It throws the onus of conflict, if there be a desire for it, on our opponents at a period when they are least likely to be successful in its promotion.

It rallies to the side of a Socialist Government that great body of middle opinion which is habituated to a belief in law and order. It splits, therefore, the ranks of the enemies of Socialism by compelling them, in circumstances where legal authority is hostile to them, to stake their cause upon a gambler's throw.

These, I think, are the circumstances, in which a reaction of violence from the Right has the least chance of obtaining its objectives.

Appeal To Reason.

My argument, up to this point, has been one built essentially upon strategic considerations. But there are other reasons of importance which make the defence of the Democratic system an urgent matter for Socialists.

There is an unfortunate tendency abroad, both on the extreme Right and on the extreme Left, to belittle the importance of reason and persuasion in the settlement of human affairs.

We speak of war as inevitable; the Right to do so on the ground of some alleged need of human nature, the Left as a necessary consequence of a capitalist society. We speak of dictatorship as inevitable; the Right do so because they see no other way of arresting the progress of Socialism, the Communists because they insist that only force can break the will of the opponents of Communism.

False Assumption.

The underlying assumption of this attitude is the futility of any method save that of force in the settlement of human differences.

I do not myself deny that there are occasions in the history of the world when these differences are so final that there is, in fact, no alternative but force to their settlement.

But I do not believe that the use of force is likely to be successful unless its employment is related to a previously widespread conviction of its necessity; and it is then at least a matter for discussion as to whether it will be necessary to employ it.

The enforcement of the Peace of Versailles by the victorious allies is an instance of the use of force to settle a dispute: I do not think it can be called a striking success.

The Case of Hitler.

The regime of Hitler is an example of the forcible imposition of a philosophy upon a population 13 millions of whom at least dissent vehemently from its implications; and it is, I suggest, obvious to most thinking persons that it will provoke its own violent overthrow sooner or later.

Because the use of reason is the high-road to the consolidation of power it seems to me urgent to rely upon it until it has been demonstrated that no attention to, or respect for, its conclusions is likely to be displayed by our opponents.

No Blind Faith.

This does not, in my judgment, imply that the task of the Labor Movement must be founded upon a blind faith in the hypotheses of democracy.

The old maxim that perpetual vigilance is the price of freedom was never so obviously true as in our day.

But it does mean that Socialists, with the example of Italy and Germany before them, have the duty to take freedom seriously, and to recognise that the secret of its persistence is courage in those whose business is its defence.

Democracy the Goal.

The way to lose freedom is to be careless of its importance, to spurn its opportunities, to belittle its significance. There has been a good deal of that temper in the Labor Movement; above all, as in the case of India and the unemployed, an inertia before attacks upon its foundations which has encouraged the reactionaries to go on with their work of destruction.

It is useless to deny that the next years are likely to be a period of momentous challenge to Socialists. They may well have to prove their faith on the battlefield. At least let them remember that the goal at which they aim is a democratic society; they cannot abandon their struggle to secure it while the power remains to keep the flame of reason alight.

Daily Standard (Brisbane, Qld.), 13 July 1933 http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article183074262

A PESSIMISTIC OUTLOOK

 "Democracy in Crisis," by Harold J. Laski London: Allen and Unwin Ltd) 11/3

The critical position of democratic government is Professor Laski's theme. In the United States, he points out, banking, power, oil, transport, coal—all the essential services upon which the public welfare depends,—are vested interests in private hands; in Poland, Hungary, Rumania, and Jugoslavia the pretence of Parliamentary democracy has been abandoned; in Japan a military oligarchy is in charge; Spain has revived a Parliamentary regime, "but who can call it stable?" The South American republics continue their unenviable record of casual revolution; China is the prey of bandits; and Turkey and Persia have changed from dictatorships on the Eastern to dictatorships on the Western model. Only the British Dominions, Holland, Belgium, and the Scandinavian countries remain, with Switzerland, at all firmly wedded to a Parliamentary system; but the economic position of Australia makes the persistence of parliamentarainism a matter upon which doubt is permissible. In explanation of his contention about Australia, Professor Laski says :—" A country mortgaged to absentee creditors cannot easily maintain a high standard of life for the masses and continue to pay the interest on its debt abroad. If it defaults upon the debt its international position becomes dubious; if it meets its obligations a high standard of life becomes inaccessible to all save a small wealthy class. Is it likely that universal suffrage will produce the conditions upon which the security of capitalism depends?" For all the evils that are afflicting the world Professor Laski blames Capitalist democracy and the disturbing effect of the war. Certainty has been replaced by pessimism. The Western way of life is in the melting pot. The ancient East, so long content with a passive aquiescence in the ascendancy of the West, has issued a challenge to those who seek to preserve the conditions of tutelage. Professor Laski makes this ominous addition to this gloomy summary :— 

"The search by the intelligentsia for new canons of behaviour is like nothing so much as the last period of the ancient French regime." Obsessed by his own conception of what is happening, Professor Laski looks for the remedies. The first that he finds is the realisation that the central fact of the age is economic international independence. We should, he advises, try to discover the formulæ of an international society. The sovereign national state should be abrogated and there should be international control of currency, tariffs, migration, foreign investment and conditions of labour. "We are dominated," he declares "by a communal psychology, which thinks essentially in terms of the national state; can we rapidly transfer our thinking to the new plane that an international society implies?" Speaking of Great Britain in particular, he discusses the wisdom of transferring "a capitalist into an egalitarian democracy," and he predicts that the attempt will be made when the Labour party obtains an electoral majority in Parliament with consequences that he himself does not contemplate with equanimity.

Argus (Melbourne, Vic.), 8 July 1933 http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article4747508

"NO CLEAR DIRECTION."

 Professor Laski Discusses Roosevelt.

CONTEMPORARY America is a bewildering spectacle; I returned to England after five weeks with a sense that here, in comparison, were stability of purpose and direction of effort! It is true that the new American Government is the best since the end of the war.

It has courage, it has initiative, and, in an important degrees, it has good will. But one cannot avoid the sense, as one watches it at work, that it is overwhelmed by the complexity of its task; that it has no clear direction in which it is seeking to move; and, not least important, that the stage of evolution the American economic system has reached is unlikely to permit it the luxury of the wholesale economic reconstruction America so patently requires (says Professor Laski in the London "Herald").

What is being decided in America? Essentially, I think, the present phase is the end of the struggle between the little man and the great combination for the control of the sources of productive power. As yet, in a European sense, there is no Labor movement in America; the trade unions, with, but one notable exception, lack any serious political sense of the technique required for the defence of the wage-earning classes.

Political Issues.

The major political issues are, therefore, what they were in Great Britain when Liberals and Conservatives dominated the scene. The policies pursued by the Democrats do not think of issues in terms of the nation's mastery of its life.

They conceive of the achievement of an equilibrium in which the independence of the small owner-merchant, farmer, manufacturer, or what not, is secured.

But this is a futile attempt to arrest a technological evolution in which the small producer is bound to go to the wall. Mr. Roosevelt is seeking to protect him by a policy of regulating capitalism.

At the moment, he has a free hand simply because the Republicans are so discredited. But his effort depends upon a rapid recovery of prosperity. If that does not come, he will lose his hold of Congress at the next election, and, with it, his initiative in legislation.

In that event his last year of office will be barren; and he will hand over to the Republicans—who stand essentially for big business—a highly centralised political machine more apt to the development of industrial feudalism than the world has seen in modern times.

Workers' Outlook.

The American working man will, under those circumstances, be proletarianised under conditions which will make the task of organisation more arduous and more bitter than it has been anywhere since the industrial revolution.

What I felt in America was that the whirlwind of depression had come so quickly that no Government could bridge the gap between the historic psychology of its electorate and the measure required for reconstruction. That is why, I think, the Presidential policy will be regulation, where the facts require socialisation.

Roosevelt Doomed.

That is why I believe that, despite his profound desire to help "the forgotten man," President Roosevelt is doomed to defeat; he is trying to do with the American economic order things its environment does not make possible.

And this is why I come back to England with a profound sense that our outlook is a more hopeful one. For though the experimental temper of Washington is incomparably better than the reactionary do-nothingism of our own Government, here, at least, the lines of division in policy are clear.

The British people have given their Government as wide a mandate for private enterprise as it has ever received; it is terribly and convincingly clear that it has no notion how to make use of it.

The alternative in this country is not, as in the United States, a policy of limited control. The alternative is a clear policy of wide, and rapid socialisation for which the  psychology of the people is being increasingly prepared.

If there is no European catastrophe, if, further, we can count upon respect for constitutional principles, the next years in England ought to give the Labor Party the most creative opportunity in its history.

Compare that situation with the American position. There are 15 million unemployed who with their dependents probably constitute a population greater in number than the whole of our people.

Great schemes must develop, like unemployment insurance, of social welfare, for which the necessary Civil Service will have to be improvised. Control of banking, hours of labor, property-rights, will have to be invented; and these experiments will have to run the gamut of a Supreme Court which is nothing so much as the final defender of economic privilege. That is not all.

States And Federation

The relation of the States to the Federal Government is largely archaic; yet it will be astonishingly difficult to secure its radical amendment. The temper of the people is ardent for change, but it is still set in an overwhelmingly individualist environment. Labor is badly organised and politically unconscious.

 There is no well-developed co-operative movement. The whole social life of America, in a word, is still planned upon the assumption that it is the fabled land of opportunity. And only the actual vision of America can make the observer realise the volume of reconstruction, psychological and institutional, which the new environment requires.

I did not feel that the American Government has either the power or the institutions essential to the task it confronts. It is still, as a Government, largely thinking in terms that the conditions have made obsolete.

It is a "Liberal" Government at a time when the recipe of Liberalism has no applicability to the issues before us.

Inflation?

It may do something by inflation to relieve the terrible pressure of mortgages and debt-interests. It may ease the tariff-barriers which have so woefully handicapped international trade.

It may establish a sounder banking system and offer a greater security to the investor. It may promote schemes of social welfare on the lines of the legislation fostered by the Liberal Government of 1906. But even supposing that it achieves all these things, it will still have left the effective economic power of the community in the hands of the few.

It will still not have been able to plan an America in which there is even an approximation to an equal claim on the common good.

It is no doubt true that the motives of Mr. Roosevelt and his colleagues reveal a far more liberal and creative temper than those of the "National" Government. 

No Organised Workers

But what is lacking in America is a seriously organised and self-conscious working class which sees the problems of power and is prepared to think in those terms. Until that epoch arrives in the United States I find it hard to see how any progressive movement can have behind it the driving force which brings success.

There may be sporadic improvement. There may be well-meant effort to anticipate and stem working-class discontent before it assumes unmanageable proportions. But there will be no decisive attack on the central citadel of power.

In Great Britain it is toward that decisive attack that we are marching. There is no need, Heaven knows, to anticipate that the task will be other than a very difficult one; the British Labor Movement is learning slowly, but, I think, steadily the lessons of 1931.

But at least the character of the alternatives is with us one that is increasingly obvious. To retain the present social order means to retain the present drift and misery and inability to plan in a wholesale way.

A government of the Left in these next years means experiment with the vital foundations of the national life. We have reached a stage in our evolution where that experiment is the alternative to disaster. And it is because a government of the Left may still be the choice of the British people that I find here a prospect of hope not yet discernible on the American horizon.

http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article185468576


Wednesday, 26 March 2025

SOCIALISM LOOKS AT UNIVERSITY

 SUBVERSION BY SUBSIDISED PEDANTRY

— PROFESSORS AND PLANNED ECONOMY

(By SOLOMON BRIGG.)

 (No, 24.)

IN previous articles we have been examining the technique of Capitalism facing this the major crisis of its existence. In turn we have analysed the Fascist experiment, the position of the Press, certain phases of financial control, and the insidious attempt to undermine responsible working-class organisation by suborning responsible working-class executives.

 One of the most recent phases of declining capitalism has been its growing consciousness that an enlightened democracy represents the most serious challenge to the continuance of its exploitation of the masses. In America, Theodore Dreiser, Sherwood Anderson, Upton Sinclair and John Dos Passos have brought to literature a recognition of the social necessities of the times, and ripped away the conventional hypocrisy cloaking the vices of a materialistic age.

 In England, Bernard Shaw with his mordant pen has in the "Apple Cart" and similar works, shown the true significance of the social struggle, Harold Laski has remorselessly analysed the political concepts from London University; G. H. D. Cole has advocated Fabianism from the shelter of Oxford; whilst in literature J. Middleton Murry, the late D. H. Lawrence and more recently Aldous Huxley have shown that the intellectuals of the period all realise its deficiencies due to the failure of capitalism to assess true social values.

 Aldous Huxley in "Brave New Worlds" is seen by John Strachey as sending the "long, delicate, probing fingers of his analysis into every corner of capitalist society. Go where you like, 'do what you will,' you will never escape from the smell of ordure and decay." 

That the Australian Government censored this volume from the gifted pen of England's most brilliant young literary giant is thus seen in its true perspective. His Utopia is a repugnant one, machine conceived and machine built, and its automata may well be accepted as the most devastating destructive criticism of the machine age yet essayed in literature. But authority is even more restive under satire than the philippics of its avowed opponents.

 Effective Contribution

 In England the London University has been long a meeting place for intellectuals and social theorists, free to promulgate their views, however dangerous from the point of view of the established order. Such freedom of thought was rightly regarded as the most effective contribution to intellectual democracy achieved in any part of the world. Laski in his recent work, "Democracy in Crisis," felt himself free to pursue his analysis even as far as a consideration of the possible reactions of the Crown itself, and Middleton Murry in the "Adelphi" is free to consider the application of revolutionary Communism to Britain without calling down the wrath of the authorities.

 Professor Albert Einstein, the world's greatest physicist, found sanctuary from the excesses of Nazi-ism in a Chair at Oxford University, and no one questioned his political views prior to his appointment, although everyone recognised that they were not in harmony with present-day Capitalism. Nevertheless, when he appeared in the gallery of the Lords during a debate on the Semitic question, members of that House, models of Conservative propriety, broke the traditions of ages by rising in their places to applaud his appearance.

 Professor Soddy, Professor of Physics at Oxford, feels himself free to advocate radical monetary theories, and even officials of the British Treasury itself, like Mr. R. G. Hawtrey and Dr. Wm. Shaw, are free to enter the field of monetary controversy, expounding heterodox views on occasions in direct opposition  to those of their own department.

 Mr. J. M. Keynes, in his "Essays in Persuasion," finds that "the Economic Problem,  as one may call it for short, the problem of want and poverty, and the economic struggle between classes and nations, is nothing but a frightful muddle, a transitory and unnecessary muddle," but if he held the views of Marx he would still be free to practise his profession at Cambridge without restraint. So Marx himself, after conflicts in Prussia and expulsion from Paris, found sanctuary in London, and "Das Kapital'" represents the fruits of his research in the British Museum and London libraries.

 This led, no doubt, to his observation that Britain was the only country in which he had been that could achieve the emancipation of the working classes without recourse to violence but could, in fact, achieve it by utilising the constitutional processes at hand.

 All of which leads up to an examination of the position of the intellectuals in Australia, and the attitude adopted by the University administrators to freedom of thought and discussion. The noble conception of the University presented by Cardinal Newman has lost much of its lustre during recent years. As the economic struggle has intensified, Capitalism has realised the necessity of regimenting every agency to assist it in its fight.

 Politically-minded

 So the University as Australia knows it has become politically-minded in the very narrow sense of the term, and we have witnessed of late developments which show that it no longer can be regarded as an institution of scholarship and research, but rather as a very pliant instrument for the cultivation of a ''correct attitude." It is, indeed, significant that professors of history, and economics in particular, who have shown a disposition to examine facts from a detached intellectual standpoint and convey their judgement judicially and honestly to their students, have invariably been frozen out. In the realm of history, obviously, the man who essays a true economic interpretation of the principal phases of historic development and the motives actuating the leading figures engaged, may be regarded as a "social menace" by those desirous of maintaining the present system.

 If he exposes the cant teachings of the schools regarding the many "fights for freedom" and shows how Imperialism meant the exploitation of helpless colored races, how unscrupulous employers were protected by an equally unscrupulous State when exploiting the workers, particularly the women and children, he is immediately out of court— and incidentally out of a job. Obviously the results of such teaching will be quickly apparent in a new attitude in the schools, and instead of the vicious sentimentalism and gross misrepresentations of facts now posturing in the guise of history, the children who are not destined to reach the higher stages of the educational regime will be informed of the truth regarding the mistakes of the past.

 How many are conversant with the terrible story of the transportation of the early industrialists, who had the temerity to advocate some relief from the sufferings of their fellows? The history professor who deals with even the objective data of the Five Years' Plan is regarded as a dangerous influence, although in every other country in the world this experiment is being studied in order to ascertain the benefits of a planned economy, and already its principles have been adopted in a modified form in the tottering citadels of Capitalism itself.

 Banks' Briefs.

 But when we turn to Economics, the position is even more desperate. Indeed, in many of our public institutions we find occupants of teaching positions who are at the same time obviously in receipt of briefs from private banks and large trusts. How they reconcile their dual positions it is impossible to say, as in a crisis like the present they are called upon to interpret the functions of the institutions they are sponsoring, and analyse for their students the effects of the policy being pursued by the financial institutions.

 If they consent to become paid propagandists in a quasi-private capacity, how may they avoid becoming partisans in the lecture hall? But their position becomes altogether intolerable when called upon in their public capacity to act in the advisory capacity as monetary technicians to the State in defining relief measures. As the private banking institutions occupy the keystone of the present monetary arch their views are impossible of acceptance as the unbiassed judgment of independent experts.

 The Chicago economic professor, charged with being the presiding genius behind one of the most lucrative "rackets" in that exotic centre of the modern technique of speedy expropriation, is, if guilty, merely pursuing the present liberal tendencies of his profession to their logical conclusion. The threadbare plaint of the University pedant that he is removed from the worldly taints of commercialism is every day proving a mockery and sham.

 So the lecture hall has become the forum for the political and commercial aspirations of its dons. If it is intellectually and politically dangerous for a University teacher to examine in a controversial manner the teachings and practices of Communism it must be equally intellectually and politically dangerous for another professor to openly espouse the revolutionary philosophy of Fascism, or advocate the destruction of the existing Parliamentary instrument.

 Labor believes that it should be the function of the University teacher to examine untrammelled every modern political, social and economic phenomenon as it arises, without the interference of any group of muddling administrative penguins. The first duty of every teacher must be that he thoroughly examines all the data available, forms his independent judgment, and is then free to indicate his views. Otherwise he must submit all the objective facts in a dispassionate manner pro. and con., and leave his students to formulate their own opinions. Either method properly handled gives to posterity a chance, but there must be no suppression of material facts, as so often happens at present for the sole reason that such do not happen to coincide with the views of the teacher.

Labor however, must be determined that the channels of true education shall not be polluted by capitalistic subversion, by making the various University faculties merely a convenient method of subsidising propaganda to be disseminated there-from through every aspect of public life. Hitler in his expulsion of the University professors because of their refusal to embrace Nazi-ism or because of their religious beliefs, Jewish or Roman Catholic, has revealed the ultimate results of such a policy. 

Repugnant

 Similarly in Russia the historic pronouncement that the intellectuals of the old regime would provide a satisfactory "manure" is repugnant to our ideals of intellectual freedom. The Universities must remain sanctuaries for free and independent research and erudition, and, with the growing reliance upon technicians for guidance in a planned economy, it is more urgently necessary than ever before that they should remain such.

 Unfortunately Labor administrators in the past have often failed to appreciate the necessity of policing these important avenues by failing to secure adequate representation of working class thought on the administrative executives of these institutions. In the future development of our country this must be regarded as one of the most urgent tasks, and no excuse accepted for failing to carry out the declared will of the Movement in this connection. 

 The true conception of the position of the University teacher should be that he is equal in status with our present conception of the position of a Supreme Court Judge. His remuneration must be sufficient to enable him to devote his time entirely to his duties; and, being thus economically independent, a condition of his employment must be that he cannot accept retainers from outside institutions. He is indeed a servant of society and he should be at all times prepared to give his services to solving the problems confronting the State.

 Apart from these conditions, he must be free to advance any views which his studies inform him to be intellectually and socially correct. By adopting these principles, the University might be restored to its former position of honor in the community.

Labor Daily (Sydney, NSW), August 1933 http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article236575880

SOCIALISM FACES THE WORLD

 — — MINORITY PHILIPPICS CHALLENGE PARLIAMENTS  PREPARING FOR THE FASCIST STATE (By SOLOMON BRIGG) (NO. 22.) Whether it hurts the forces of...