We know how, in today's society, the world is ruled by the united capitalists, the financiers, and how, without a doubt, all the wars of the last few decades have been strongly influenced by capitalist interests, even if they were not fought solely for that reason.
In the war between the United States and Spain, it was the rich sugar and tobacco plantations, along with Cuba's iron-rich soil, that were at stake for American capitalists.
In the Transvaal War, it was mainly the gold and diamond mines that were the issue. The Russo-Japanese War was dominated by trade in Manchuria and trade relations with China. From the outset, the war between Turkey and Italy was linked to financial interests, in particular those of the Banco di Roma. And so one could go on. Many of us have applied these truths to simplify the matter to such an extent that one only has to utter the word “war” to immediately hear the words ‘capitalist’ and “financier” attached to it. And yet the war between Russia and Japan had such a strong character of racial struggle that it was difficult to reconcile it with capitalist interests, and the basic idea of “Asia for the Asians” involves more than simple financial motives; it also depends on numerous other factors relating to the civilisation of peoples.
The complexity of the causes that together form the origin of wars has become even more apparent in the recent Balkan War, in which differences in race, religion, customs, and habits of the peoples played an important role, as was the case in the uprisings in Albania and elsewhere. However, one could dismiss this complex of factors by claiming that capitalism was the sole underlying cause.
In addition, many of us do not even see a difference between the concepts of “capitalist” and “economic” and do not seem to see or want to see that, as long as the working classes still lack the social and technical skills not only to overthrow governments and start a revolution in the streets, but also to take over the management of large industries, railways, etc., we too will be obliged to adapt to a capitalist society; what we call capitalist actually refers to the economic interests of the entire population, not only the capitalists and financiers, but also the farmers and workers.
To consider Serbia, for example, the country that is also playing a role in the current European war, I am happy to accept that the desire to become independent from Austria has prevailed in this country and that, in particular, pig breeding in Serbia — a national industry for which Austria provided a large market — necessitated a port on the Adriatic Sea and a railway connecting the interior with that port. I also know that, even before the war, the big financiers had mapped out the various railway lines they considered necessary; but let no one now come and tell me that it was the capitalists of a country so little developed from a capitalist industrial point of view who were solely interested in the economic development of their country. Let no one tell me that it makes no difference to the simple farmer, to the poorest Serbian swineherd, whether pigs increase in value by 10, 20, or 100%.
The main cause of the terrible war that is currently raging across Europe and Asia lies elsewhere and is by no means a struggle between the capitalists of different countries.
It is simply a struggle between civilizations.
The workers of the various countries are ill-informed when they say, as I have heard many times recently at meetings: “We, the workers, have no interest in this war; it is a capitalist war.”
I confess that I was dumbfounded when I first heard this argument in the discussions. “What,” I exclaimed, “you think this is a war of the capitalists. But don't you see that the entire democratic civilization of Western Europe, everything we have gained through progress over many years, is being threatened by the system of unlimited power?”
Indeed, let us examine the origins of this war. Austria's dissatisfaction with Serbia after that country's success in the Balkan War is understandable, and it is clear that the assassination of the Austrian Archduke and his wife in Sarajevo was only a pretext. Nevertheless, this pretext is linked to the antagonism between the Germanic and Slavic races and the anti-German propaganda conducted by the Serbs in Bosnia and Herzegovina. This was followed by Russia's intervention. Racial hostility also plays a role here, and it would be wrong to claim that Russia intervened solely because Russian capitalists are more sympathetic to Serbian capitalists than to Austrian capitalists; after all, none of them have a homeland.
Where France has sided with Russia and has not repeated the mistake of 1866, when it allowed Austria to be crushed by Prussia, only to be crushed itself a few years later, think what you will, but... it is by no means exclusively capitalist interests that are at stake here.
Let me continue. I know very well from my economic studies what capitalism is. And so, from the summer until the very last moment, I refused to believe in the possibility of Germany declaring war on France and Russia, precisely because I knew that this war would ruin thousands of German capitalists, even if they were victorious, and in the event of defeat, would spell national disaster.
It was foreseeable that the English and French fleets would control the seas if England joined the Allies. The consequences of this would undoubtedly be the paralysis of all German trade at sea, the capture of all German ships at sea, the loss of the German colonies, while all the work done for years by German capitalists for overseas trade would be seriously endangered.
There is more: more than any other country in Europe, German industry works for the world market. In Germany, there is not the relative balance between agriculture and trade that exists in France; Germany does not have extensive colonies like England. Nevertheless, the large factories in the Rhine-Westphalian provinces and Silesia, etc., have expanded extraordinarily over the last few decades. These factories must operate day and night to make the capital invested in them profitable. If they were to shut down for months, simply because their markets were closed, this would spell ruin for thousands of capitalists whose assets are tied up in the vast buildings and machinery that, doomed to stand idle, are falling into disrepair. Moreover, the large American trusts would like nothing better than to take over the customers that German trade and industry had managed to capture in a quarter of a century.
With all this in mind, let us not be told that the German capitalists wanted the declaration of war.
From private sources in Berlin's commercial and industrial circles, I heard other and much more plausible considerations.
Those involved in trade and industry say: “We had to work too hard day and night to get involved in politics, which we left to the emperor and the Junkers. We certainly did not ask for this devastating war.”
Come now, let us realize that Germany's struggle for world domination in Europe is above all a racial war and a struggle of governments. And even if financial interests were at stake in this war, even if the needs of economic expansion and colonial policy had carried more weight in the prospect of a possible expansion of German territory, it would be wrong to think that this prospect was worth so many sacrifices from a capitalist point of view, just as it would be wrong to hold the capitalists solely responsible for this war.
In the workers' circles of the large German syndicates, people are just as imperialistic in their views as in the circles of the leaders, and if one reads the work of the Social Democrat Edouard Bernstein: Socialism in Theory and Practice, and turn to the pages dealing with the necessity of the colonial policy of the German Empire, one would understand that the complex issues that gave rise to this war cannot be resolved by directing a few words of reproach at “the capitalists.”
CHRISTIAAN CORNELISSEN.