|
Emma Goldman (1869 – 1940) |
|
From Anarchism and
Other Essays, Third Revised Edition, |
|
Is it love of one’s birthplace,
the place of childhood’s recollections and hopes, dreams and aspirations?
Is it the place where, in childlike naivete, we would watch the fleeting
clouds, and wonder why we, too, could not run so swiftly? The place where we
would count the milliard glittering stars, terror-stricken lest each one
“an eye should be,” piercing the very depths of our little souls? Is it
the place where we would listen to the music of the birds, and long to have
wings to fly, even as they, to distant lands? Or the place where we would
sit at mother’s knee, enraptured by wonderful tales of great deeds and
conquests? In short, is it love for the
spot, every inch representing dear and precious recollections of a happy,
joyous, and playful childhood? If that were patriotism, few
American men of today could be called upon to be patriotic, since the place
of play has been turned into factory, mill, and mine, while deafening sounds
of machinery have replaced the music of the birds. Nor can we longer hear
the tales of great deeds, for the stories our mothers tell today are but
those of sorrow, tears, and grief. What, then, is patriotism? “Patriotism, sir, is the last
resort of scoundrels,” said Dr. Johnson. Leo Tolstoy, the greatest
anti-patriot of our times, defines patriotism as the principle that will
justify the training of wholesale murderers; a trade that requires better
equipment for the exercise of man-killing than the making of such
necessities of life as shoes, clothing, and houses; a trade that guarantees
better returns and greater glory than that of the average workingman. Gustave Hervé, another great
anti-patriot, justly calls patriotism a superstition — one far more
injurious, brutal, and inhumane than religion. The superstition of religion
originated in man’s inability to explain natural phenomena. That is, when
primitive man heard thunder or saw the lightning, he could not account for
either, and therefore concluded that back of them must be a force greater
than himself. Similarly he saw a supernatural force in the rain, and in the
various other changes in nature. Patriotism, on the other hand, is a
superstition artificially created and maintained through a network of lies
and falsehoods; a superstition that robs man of his self-respect and
dignity, and increases his arrogance and conceit. Indeed, conceit, arrogance, and
egotism are the essentials of patriotism. Let me illustrate. Patriotism assumes that our globe
is divided into little spots, each one surrounded by an iron gate. Those who
have had the fortune of being born on some particular spot, consider
themselves better, nobler, grander, more intelligent than the living beings
inhabiting any other spot. It is, therefore, the duty of everyone living on
that chosen spot to fight, kill, and die in the attempt to impose his
superiority upon all the others. The inhabitants of the other spots reason
in like manner, of course, with the result that, from early infancy, the
mind of the child is poisoned with bloodcurdling stories about the Germans,
the French, the Italians, Russians, etc. When the child has reached manhood,
he is thoroughly saturated with the belief that he is chosen by the Lord
himself to defend his country against the attack or invasion of any
foreigner. It is for that purpose that we are clamoring for a greater army
and navy, more battleships and ammunition. It is for that purpose that
America has within a short time spent four hundred million dollars. Just think of it — four hundred
million dollars taken from the produce of the people. For surely it is not the rich who
contribute to patriotism. They are cosmopolitans, perfectly at home in every
land. We in America know well the truth of this. Are not our rich Americans
Frenchmen in France, Germans in Germany, or Englishmen in England? And do
they not squander with cosmopolitan grace fortunes coined by American
factory children and cotton slaves? Yes, theirs is the patriotism that will
make it possible to send messages of condolence to a despot like the Russian
Tsar, when any mishap befalls him, as President Roosevelt did in the name of
his people, when Sergius was
punished by the Russian revolutionists. It is a patriotism that will assist
the arch-murderer, Diaz, in destroying thousands of lives in Mexico, or that
will even aid in arresting Mexican revolutionists on American soil and keep
them incarcerated in American prisons, without the slightest cause or
reason. But, then, patriotism is not for
those who represent wealth and power. It is good enough for the people. It reminds one of the historic
wisdom of Frederick the Great, the bosom friend of Voltaire, who said:
“Religion is a fraud, but it must be maintained for the masses.” That patriotism is rather a
costly institution, no one will doubt after considering the following
statistics. The progressive increase of the
expenditures for the leading armies and navies of the world during the last
quarter of a century is a fact of such gravity as to startle every
thoughtful student of economic problems. It may be briefly indicated by
dividing the time from 1881 to 1905 into five-year periods, and noting the
disbursements of several great nations for army and navy purposes during the
first and last of those periods. From the first to the last of the periods
noted the expenditures of Great Britain increased from $2,101,848,936 to
$4,143,226,885, those of France from $3,324,500,000 to $3,455,109,900, those
of Germany from $725,000,200 to $2,700,375,600, those of the United States
from $1,275,500,750 to $2,650,900,450, those of Russia from $1,900,975,500
to $5,250,445,100, those of Italy from $1,600,975,750 to $1,755,500,100, and
those of Japan from $182,900,500 to $700,925,475. The military expenditures
of each of the nations mentioned increased in each of the five-year periods
under review. During the entire interval from 1881 to 1905 Great Britain’s
outlay for her army increased fourfold, that of the United States was
tripled, Russia’s was doubled, that of Germany increased 35%, that of
France about 15%, and that of Japan nearly 500%. If we compare the
expenditures of these nations upon their armies with their total
expenditures for all the twenty-five years ending with 1905, the proportion
rose as follows: In Great Britain from 20% to 37; in the United States from
15 to 23; in France from 16 to 18; in Italy from 12 to 15; in Japan from 12
to 14. On the other hand, it is interesting to note that the proportion in
Germany decreased from about 58% to 25, the decrease being due to the
enormous increase in the imperial expenditures for other purposes, the fact
being that the army expenditures for the period of 190I-5 were higher than
for any five-year period preceding. Statistics show that the countries in
which army expenditures are greatest, in proportion to the total national
revenues, are Great Britain, the United States, Japan, France, and Italy, in
the order named. The showing as to the cost of
great navies is equally impressive. During the 25 years ending with 1905,
naval expenditures increased approximately as follows: Great Britain, 300%;
France 60%; Germany 600%; the United States 525%; Russia 300%; Italy 250%;
and Japan, 700%. With the exception of Great Britain, the United States
spends more for naval purposes than any other nation, and this expenditure
bears also a larger proportion to the entire national disbursements than
that of any other power. In the period 1881-5, the expenditure for the
United States navy was $6.20 out of each $100 appropriated for all national
purposes; the amount rose to $6.60 for the next five-year period, to $8.10
for the next, to $11.70 for the next, and to $16.40 for 1901-5. It is
morally certain that the outlay for the current period of five years will
show a still further increase. The rising cost of militarism may
be still further illustrated by computing it as a per capita tax on
population. From the first to the last of the five-year periods taken as the
basis for the comparisons here given, it has risen as follows: In Great
Britain, from $18.47 to $52.50; in France, from $19.66 to $23.62; in
Germany, from $10.17 to $15.51; in the United States, from $5.62 to $13.64;
in Russia, from $6.14 to $8.37; in Italy, from $9.59 to $11.24, and in Japan
from 86 cents to $3.11. It is in connection with this rough estimate of cost
per capita that the economic burden of militarism is most appreciable. The irresistible conclusion from
available data is that the increase of expenditure for army and navy
purposes is rapidly surpassing the growth of population in each of the
countries considered in the present calculation. In other words, a
continuation of the increased demands of militarism threatens each of those
nations with a progressive exhaustion both of men and resources. The awful waste that patriotism
necessitates ought to be sufficient to cure the man of even average
intelligence from this disease. Yet patriotism demands still more. The
people are urged to be patriotic and for that luxury they pay, not only by
supporting their “defenders,” but even by sacrificing their own
children. Patriotism requires allegiance to the flag, which means obedience
and readiness to kill father, mother, brother, sister. The usual contention is that we
need a standing army to protect the country from foreign invasion. Every
intelligent man and woman knows, however, that this is a myth maintained to
frighten and coerce the foolish. The governments of the world, knowing each
other’s interests, do not invade each other. They have learned that they
can gain much more by international arbitration of disputes than by war and
conquest. Indeed, as Carlyle said, “War is a quarrel between two thieves
too cowardly to fight their own battle; therefore they take boys from one
village and another village, stick them into uniforms, equip them with guns,
and let them loose like wild beasts against each other.” It does not require much wisdom
to trace every war back to a similar cause. Let us take our own
Spanish-American war, supposedly a great and patriotic event in the history
of the United States. How our hearts burned with indignation against the
atrocious Spaniards! True, our indignation did not
flare up spontaneously. It was nurtured by months of newspaper agitation,
and long after Butcher Weyler had killed off many noble Cubans and outraged
many Cuban women. Still, in justice to the American Nation be it said, it
did grow indignant and was willing to fight, and that it fought bravely. But
when the smoke was over, the dead buried, and the cost of the war came back
to the people in an increase in the price of commodities and rent — that
is, when we sobered up from our patriotic spree, it suddenly dawned on us
that the cause of the Spanish-American war was the consideration of the
price of sugar; or, to be more explicit, that the lives, blood, and money of
the American people were used to protect the interests of American
capitalists, which were threatened by the Spanish government. That this is not an exaggeration,
but is based on absolute facts and figures, is best proven by the attitude
of the American government to Cuban labor. When Cuba was firmly in the
clutches of the United States, the very soldiers sent to liberate Cuba were
ordered to shoot Cuban workingmen during the great cigarmakers’ strike,
which took place shortly after the war. Nor do we stand alone in waging
war for such causes. The curtain is beginning to be lifted on the motives of
the terrible Russo-Japanese war, which cost so much blood and tears. And we
see again that back of the fierce Moloch of war stands the still fiercer god
of Commercialism. Kuropatkin, the Russian Minister of War during the
Russo-Japanese struggle, has revealed the true secret behind the latter. The
Tsar and his Grand Dukes, having invested money in Korean concessions, the
war was forced for the sole purpose of speedily accumulating large fortunes.
The contention that a standing
army and navy is the best security of peace is about as logical as the claim
that the most peaceful citizen is he who goes about heavily armed. The
experience of every-day life fully proves that the armed individual is
invariably anxious to try his strength. The same is historically true of
governments. Really peaceful countries do not waste life and energy in war
preparations, with the result that peace is maintained. However, the clamor for an
increased army and navy is not due to any foreign danger. It is owing to the
dread of the growing discontent of the masses and of the international
spirit among the workers. It is to meet the internal enemy that the Powers
of various countries are preparing themselves; an enemy, who, once awakened
to consciousness, will prove more dangerous than any foreign invader. The powers that have for
centuries been engaged in enslaving the masses have made a thorough study of
their psychology. They know that the people at large are like children whose
despair, sorrow, and tears can be turned into joy with a little toy. And the
more gorgeously the toy is dressed, the louder the colors, the more it will
appeal to the million-headed child. An army and navy represents the
people’s toys. To make them more attractive and acceptable, hundreds and
thousands of dollars are being spent for the display of these toys. That was
the purpose of the American government in equipping a fleet and sending it
along the Pacific coast, that every American citizen should be made to feel
the pride and glory of the United States. The city of San Francisco spent
one hundred thousand dollars for the entertainment of the fleet; Los
Angeles, sixty thousand; Seattle and Tacoma, about one hundred thousand. To entertain the fleet, did I
say? To dine and wine a few superior officers, while the “brave boys”
had to mutiny to get sufficient food. Yes, two hundred and sixty
thousand dollars were spent on fireworks, theatre parties, and revelries, at
a time when men, women, and child}en through the breadth and length of the
country were starving in the streets; when thousands of unemployed were
ready to sell their labor at any price. Two hundred and sixty thousand
dollars! What could not have been accomplished with such an enormous sum?
But instead of bread and shelter, the children of those cities were taken to
see the fleet, that it may remain, as one of the newspapers said, “a
lasting memory for the child.” A wonderful thing to remember, is
it not? The implements of civilized slaughter. If the mind of the child is
to be poisoned with such memories, what hope is there for a true realization
of human brotherhood? We Americans claim to be a
peace-loving people. We hate bloodshed; we are opposed to violence. Yet we
go into spasms of joy over the possibility of projecting dynamite bombs from
flying machines upon helpless citizens. We are ready to hang, electrocute,
or lynch anyone, who, from economic necessity, will risk his own life in the
attempt upon that of some industrial magnate. Yet our hearts swell with
pride at the thought that America is becoming the most powerful nation on
earth, and that it will eventually plant her iron foot on the necks of all
other nations. Such is the logic of patriotism. Considering the evil results that
patriotism is fraught with for the average man, it is as nothing compared
with the insult and injury that patriotism heaps upon the soldier himself,
— that poor, deluded victim of superstition and ignorance. He, the savior
of his country, the protector of his nation — what has patriotism in store
for him? A life of slavish submission, vice, and perversion, during peace; a
life of danger, exposure, and death, during war. While on a recent lecture tour in
San Francisco, I visited the Presidio, the most beautiful spot overlooking
the Bay and Golden Gate Park. Its purpose should have been playgrounds for
children, gardens and music for the recreation of the weary. Instead it is
made ugly, dull, and gray by barracks — barracks wherein the rich would
not allow their dogs to dwell. In these miserable shanties soldiers are
herded like cattle; here they waste their young days, polishing the boots
and brass buttons of their superior officers. Here, too, I saw the distinction
of classes: sturdy sons of a free Republic, drawn up in line like convicts,
saluting every passing shrimp of a lieutenant. American equality, degrading
manhood and elevating the uniform! Barrack life further tends to
develop tendencies of sexual perversion. It is gradually producing along
this line results similar to European military conditions. Havelock Ellis,
the noted writer on sex psychology, has made a thorough study of the
subject. I quote: “Some of the barracks are great centers of male
prostitution.... The number of soldiers who prostitute themselves is greater
than we are willing to believe. It is no exaggeration to say that in certain
regiments the presumption is in favor of the venality of the majority of the
men.... On summer evenings Hyde Park and the neighborhood of Albert Gate are
full of guardsmen and others plying a lively trade, and with little
disguise, in uniform or out.... In most cases the proceeds form a
comfortable addition to Tommy Atkins’ pocket money.” To what extent this perversion
has eaten its way into the army and navy can best be judged from the fact
that special houses exist for this form of prostitution. The practice is not
limited to England; it is universal. “Soldiers are no less sought after in
France than in England or in Germany, and special houses for military
prostitution exist both in Paris and the garrison towns.” Had Mr. Havelock Ellis included
America in his investigation of sex perversion, he would have found that the
same conditions prevail in our army and navy as in those of other countries.
The growth of the standing army inevitably adds to the spread of sex
perversion; the barracks are the incubators. Aside from the sexual effects of
barrack life, it also tends to unfit the soldier for useful labor after
leaving the army. Men, skilled in a trade, seldom enter the army or navy,
but even they, after a military experience, find themselves totally unfitted
for their former occupations. Having acquired habits of idleness and a taste
for excitement and adventure, no peaceful pursuit can content them. Released
from the army, they can turn to no useful work. But it is usually the social
riff-raff, discharged prisoners and the like, whom either the struggle for
life or their own inclination drives into the ranks. These, their military
term over, again turn to their former life of crime, more brutalized and
degraded than before. It is a well-known fact that in our prisons there is a
goodly number of ex-soldiers; while, on the other hand, the army and navy
are to a great extent plied with ex-convicts. Of all the evil results I have
just described none seems to me so detrimental to human integrity as the
spirit patriotism has produced in the case of Private William Buwalda.
Because he foolishly believed that one can be a soldier and exercise his
rights as a man at the same time, the military authorities punished him
severely. True, he had served his country fifteen years, during which time
his record was unimpeachable. According to Gen. Funston, who reduced
Buwalda’s sentence to three years, “the first duty of an officer or an
enlisted man is unquestioned obedience and loyalty to the government, and it
makes no difference whether he approves of that government or not.” Thus
Funston stamps the true character of allegiance. According to him, entrance
into the army abrogates the principles of the Declaration of Independence.
What a strange development of patriotism that turns a thinking being into a
loyal machine! In justification of this most
outrageous sentence of Buwalda, Gen. Funston tells the American people that
the soldier’s action was “a serious crime equal to treason.” Now, what
did this “terrible crime” really consist of? Simply in this: William
Buwalda was one of fifteen hundred people who attended a public meeting in
San Francisco; and, oh, horrors, he shook hands with the speaker, Emma
Goldman. A terrible crime, indeed, which the General calls “a great
military offense, infinitely worse than desertion.” Can there be a greater indictment
against patriotism than that it will thus brand a man a criminal, throw him
into prison, and rob him of the results of fifteen years of faithful
service? Buwalda gave to his country the best years of his life and his very
manhood. But all that was as nothing. Patriotism is inexorable and,
like all insatiable monsters, demands all or nothing. It does not admit that
a soldier is also a human being, who has a right to his own feelings and
opinions, his own inclinations and ideas. No, patriotism can not admit of
that. That is the lesson which Buwalda was made to learn; made to learn at a
rather costly, though not at a useless price. When he returned to freedom,
he had lost his position in the army, but he regained his self-respect.
After all, that is worth three years of imprisonment. A writer on the military
conditions of America, in a recent article, commented on the power of the
military man over the civilian in Germany. He said, among other things, that
if our Republic had no other meaning than to guarantee all citizens equal
rights, it would have just cause for existence. I am convinced that the
writer was not in Colorado during the patriotic régime of General Bell. He
probably would have changed his mind had he seen how, in the name of
patriotism and the Republic, men were thrown into bull-pens, dragged about,
driven across the border, and subjected to all kinds of indignities. Nor is that Colorado incident the
only one in the growth of military power in the United States. There is
hardly a strike where troops and militia do not come to the rescue of those
in power, and where they do not act as arrogantly and brutally as do the men
wearing the Kaiser’s uniform. Then, too, we have the Dick
military law. Had the writer forgotten that? A great misfortune with most of
our writers is that they are absolutely ignorant on current events, or that,
lacking honesty, they will not speak of these matters. And so it has come to
pass that the Dick military law was rushed through Congress with little
discussion and still less publicity — a law which gives the President the
power to turn a peaceful citizen into a bloodthirsty man-killer, supposedly
for the defense of the country, in reality for the protection of the
interests of that particular party whose mouthpiece the President happens to
be. Our writer claims that militarism
can never become such a power in America as abroad, since it is voluntary
with us, while compulsory in the Old World. Two very important facts,
however, the gentleman forgets to consider. First, that conscription has
created in Europe a deep-seated hatred of militarism among all classes of
society. Thousands of young recruits enlist under protest and, once in the
army, they will use every possible means to desert. Second, that it is the
compulsory feature of militarism which has created a tremendous
anti-militarist movement, feared by European Powers far more than anything
else. After all, the greatest bulwark of capitalism is militarism. The very
moment the latter is undermined, capitalism will totter. True, we have no
conscription; that is, men are not usually forced to enlist in the army, but
we have developed a far more exacting and rigid force — necessity. Is it
not a fact that during industrial depressions there is a tremendous increase
in the number of enlistments? The trade of militarism may not be either
lucrative or honorable, but it is better than tramping the country in search
of work, standing in the bread line, or sleeping in municipal lodging
houses. After all, it means thirteen dollars per month, three meals a day,
and a place to sleep. Yet even necessity is not
sufficiently strong a factor to bring into the army an element of character
and manhood. No wonder our military authorities complain of the “poor
material” enlisting in the army and navy. This admission is a very
encouraging sign. It proves that there is still enough of the spirit of
independence and love of liberty left in the average American to risk
starvation rather than don the uniform. Thinking men and women the world
over are beginning to realize that patriotism is too narrow and limited a
conception to meet the necessities of our time. The centralization of power
has brought into being an international feeling of solidarity among the
oppressed nations of the world; a solidarity which represents a greater
harmony of interests between the workingman of America and his brothers
abroad than between the American miner and his exploiting compatriot; a
solidarity which fears not foreign invasion, because it is bringing all the
workers to the point when they will say to their masters, “Go and do your
own killing. We have done it long enough for you.” This solidarity is
awakening the consciousness of even the soldiers, they, too, being flesh of
the flesh of the great human family. A solidarity that has proven infallible
more than once during past struggles, and which has been the impetus
inducing the Parisian soldiers, during the Commune of 1871, to refuse to
obey when ordered to shoot their brothers. It has given courage to the men
who mutinied on Russian warships during recent years. It will eventually
bring about the uprising of all the oppressed and downtrodden against their
international exploiters. The proletariat of Europe has
realized the great force of that solidarity and has, as a result,
inaugurated a war against patriotism and its bloody spectre, militarism.
Thousands of men fill the prisons of France, Germany, Russia, and the
Scandinavian countries, because they dared to defy the ancient superstition.
Nor is the movement limited to the working class; it has embraced
representatives in all stations of life, its chief exponents being men and
women prominent in art, science, and letters. America will have to follow suit.
The spirit of militarism has already permeated all walks of life. Indeed, I
am convinced that militarism is growing a greater danger here than anywhere
else, because of the many bribes capitalism holds out to those whom it
wishes to destroy. The beginning has already been made in the schools.
Evidently the government holds to the Jesuitical conception, “Give me the
child mind, and I will mould the man.” Children are trained in military
tactics, the glory of military achievements extolled in the curriculum, and
the youthful minds perverted to suit the government. Further, the youth of the country
is appealed to in glaring posters to join the army and navy. “A fine
chance to see the world!” cries the governmental huckster. Thus innocent
boys are morally shanghaied into patriotism, and the military Moloch strides
conquering through the Nation. The American workingman has
suffered so much at the hands of the soldier, State and Federal, that he is
quite justified in his disgust with, and his opposition to, the uniformed
parasite. However, mere denunciation will not solve this great problem. What
we need is a propaganda of education for the soldier: antipatriotic
literature that will enlighten him as to the real horrors of his trade, and
that will awaken his consciousness to his true relation to the man to whose
labor he owes his very existence. It is precisely this that the
authorities fear most. It is already high treason for a soldier to attend a
radical meeting. No doubt they will also stamp it high treason for a soldier
to read a radical pamphlet. But, then, has not authority from time
immemorial stamped every step of progress as treasonable? Those, however, who earnestly
strive for social reconstruction can well afford to face all that; for it is
probably even more important to carry the truth into the barracks than into
the factory. When we have undermined the patriotic lie, we shall have
cleared the path for that great structure wherein all nationalities shall be
united into a universal brotherhood —
a truly FREE SOCIETY.
|
|
A pamphlet copy of this essay is available from the Luminist Bookstore. |
