First World War Centennial

NATIONAL SELF-DEFENSE

Every observer knows that there is no peace—all of life is a struggle, physical and mental. Progress results only from the domination of the forces making for freedom and opportunity over the forces of repression.

Before the Sixteenth Annual Meeting of the National Civic Federation at Washington, D. C, January 18th, 1916.

FOR seventeen months war such as has never been known in the history of man has been devouring life and consuming the handiwork of men. Such a stupendous horror has compelled men to think deeply of the principles underlying our institutions and the spirit that makes for human progress and liberty.

Before the outbreak of the present war many be­lieved that a great war involving many nations was no longer possible; that men had developed ideals of jus­tice and of humanity that would prevent the possibility of their taking the lives of fellow men, even in the name of legitimate warfare. They hoped much—their ideals were untested.

With the declaration of war the men of each country rushed to their flags. Soon there were mobilized thou­sands of men fighting for conflicting ideals. When it was necessary to decide whether they proposed to stand by and see another nation invade their father­land, trample upon their national ideals, ruthlessly dis­regard solemn pledges given in treaties, they found that there were some things of higher value than peace. They found that there are dangers of peace more far-reaching than the dangers of war. They realized that it is better to fight and die for a cause than to main­tain peace and their physical safety at the sacrifice of their manhood and of the ideals that ennoble life.

And yet it is not an unbeautiful theory that has been dissipated by the shot and the smoke of the European war. There were many who held that an organized society was possible upon a basis of the brotherhood of man, in which all had regard for the rights of others and would subordinate their selfish interests to the welfare of others. This ideal made paramount the sanctity of human life and regarded war as a relic of barbarism possible only because institutions of justice had not been sufficiently developed. Wage earners generally of all civilized countries proclaimed and in­dorsed this ideal and declared that they would use every means within their power to prevent war even to the extent of stopping all of the industries of the na­tions through a general strike. There were many ex­treme pacifists who could find no justification for war or for the use of force in international affairs.

And I, too, found this ideal attractive. In a speech made in April, 1899, in Fremont Temple, Boston, I said:

The organized wageworker learns from his craft associa­tion the value of humanity and of the brotherhood of man, hence it is not strange that we should believe in peace, not only nationally, but internationally.

It is often our custom to send organizers from one country to another for the purpose of showing to our fellows in other countries the value of our association in the labor movement. If international peace can not be secured by the intelligence of those in authority, then I look forward to the time when the workers will settle this question—by the dock laborers refusing to handle goods that are to be used to destroy their fellow men, and by the seamen of the world, united in one organization, while willing to risk their lives in conducting the commerce of nations, abso­lutely refusing to strike down their fellow men.

My belief that war was no longer possible was based upon what I desired rather than upon realities because I felt so keenly the brutality, the destruction, and the waste of war. It seemed to me that war and condi­tions of war cut through the veneer of civilization and disclosed the brute in man. The consequence and the purpose of war accustom man to treat human life lightly. They make men callous to human suffering and they idealize force. No one can hear of the atrocities of the terrible carnage of the present war, of the destruction on the battlefields and on the high seas without a feeling of horror that civilized men can plan such methods, can use the skill of their minds and bodies and the wisdom of past generations to such terrible purpose. But what if these horrors done to the bodies of men shall prevent great horrors to the minds—the souls of men?

The pacifists and those who hold to policies of non­resistance have failed as I had failed to understand and to evaluate that quality in the human race which makes men willing to risk their all for an ideal. Men worthy of the name will fight even for a "scrap of paper" when that paper represents ideals of human justice and free­dom. The man who would not fight for such a scrap of paper is a poor craven who dares not assert his rights against the opposition and the demands of others. There is little progress made in the affairs of the world in which resistance of others is not involved. Not only must man have a keen sense of his own rights, but the will and the ability to maintain those rights with effective insistence. Resistance to injustice and tyranny and low ideals is inseparable from a virile fighting quality that has given purpose and force to ennobling causes to all nations.

Though we may realize the brutality of war, though we may know the value of life, yet we know equally well what would be the effects upon the lives and the minds of men who would lose their rights, who would accept denial of justice rather than hazard their physi­cal safety. The progress of all the ages has come as the result of protests against wrongs and existing con­ditions and through assertion of rights and effective demands for justice. Our own freedom and republican form of government have been achieved by resistance to tyranny and insistence upon rights. Freedom and democracy dare not be synonymous with weakness. They exist only because there is a vision of the possi­bilities of human life, faith in human nature, and the will to make these things realities even against the op­position of those who see and understand less deeply. The people who are willing to maintain their rights and to defend their freedom are worthy of those privileges. Rights carry with them obligation—duty. It is the duty of those who live under free institutions at least to maintain them unimpaired.

As the result of the European war there is hardly a citizen who has not in some degree modified his opin­ions upon preparedness and national defense. The be­lief prevails that there must be some policy of pre­paredness and national defense, although there is wide diversion as to what policies ought to be adopted.

Preparedness and defense are practically the reverse and obverse sides of the same problem. There are two lines of approach to this problem—one indirect, involving consideration of the development, health, and conservation of the citizens, and the other direct, in­volving the weapons of defense and specific plans for the use of power.

In the past we have trusted much to the rugged physiques, muscles, and nerves trained and under con­trol, and ability to coördinate powers quickly to meet emergencies which belong to the outdoor life of a pioneer people. Life on the frontier developed physical strength and virile manhood. Mental and physical weakness could not survive in the dangers of that life. But the frontier has vanished. The majority of our citizens no longer live in the open, and they show in their physical development the effect of the restricted life of the city. They have not the physical strength or endurance that would fit them without further prep­aration to be called into service in a citizens' army.

Since opportunities for physical training are not freely and readily available to all, some definite na­tional policy must be devised for physical training and physical preparedness of all citizens. Such a train­ing could be readily given through our public school system and other auxiliary agencies.

Physical training is properly a part of educational work, and therefore should be under the control and direction of public agencies. We are constantly com­ing to a better appreciation of what proper physical development and good health mean in the life and for the working ability of each individual. Physical train­ing and good health are just as important and just as necessary to all other interests of life as they are to national defense. The chief problem is that training of this nature should be in furtherance of broad, gen­eral usefulness and ideals and not be narrowly special­ized or dominated by the purpose of militarism.

Physical training must fit citizens for industry, for commerce, for service in the work of the nation, as well as for service in defense of the nation. But physi­cal training and preparedness are insufficient. There must be a spirit among the people that makes them loyal to country and willing to give themselves to its service and protection. That spirit can not exist unless the citizens feel that the nation will assure to all equal opportunities and equal justice. They must feel that they are a part of the nation with a voice in determin­ing its destinies. This spirit of loyalty depends not only upon political rights, but upon justice and right in the industrial field, aye, in all relations of life. National preparedness involves also power to coördinate and to utilize national forces and national re­sources. War as it is being waged to-day is not de­termined merely by the men on the battle field, but also by the mobilization of the national resources, national industries and commerce. The real problem is the organization of the material forces and resources of the country, the coördination of these in the further­ance of a definite defensive military policy. All of the power and resources of the belligerent countries are concentrated to sustain the armies in the field and to equip them with the necessary weapons of war. The contest between industries, the question of commercial control, of superiority of economic organization, are fully as important as the contest between the soldiers on the battle field. Whatever, then, is the necessary part of the organization of industrial and commercial life is an important factor in national preparedness.

Our industrial and commercial development has been of a haphazard nature rather than in accord with any definite, constructive, statesmanlike plan. Because of the vast natural resources of our country and the variety of untouched opportunities, it has been pos­sible for us as a nation to achieve tremendous results without definite plans, without much wisdom, and with­out the use of the best judgment. Considering our op­portunities and the vast wealth of our country, to have failed would have been much more marvelous than the degree of success to which we have attained. As our population has increased, as free lands have dis­appeared, as there is no longer the former wide range of opportunity, success in the future will be more di­rectly the result of the best use of available oppor­tunities and of the best coördination of existing forces. As frontier opportunities have disappeared, so frontier business policies will no longer succeed. Commercial or industrial policies that aimed at immediate results with extravagant disregard for conservation or for economical utilization of materials will be replaced by better policies of developing commerce and industry upon a basis that means constructive development in­stead of exploitation. The economic highwayman must disappear as did the frontier highwayman.

Constructive development must have consideration for every factor concerned in production and must se­cure to each equal opportunities that will result in the best service and in the conservation of the future serv­ice. Such a policy will involve thorough organiza­tion of all the factors of production. This organiza­tion must extend to the human element in production in order that there may be accorded to the workers proper consideration of their needs and proper conser­vation of their labor power.

Preparedness as viewed from this standpoint is a part of the larger problems of national development—physical, mental, economic. It is a civic, an economic, as well as a military problem. National development can be in accord with the highest ideals only when all citizens have the right to voluntary association to pro­mote their own welfare and to activities necessary to carry out the purpose of such organizations. This broad general policy includes associations of wage earners—trade unions. These associations of the work­ers must be recognized by all agencies, whether private or governmental, that are concerned with the life and the work of the workers.

Great Britain, in dealing with immediate problems of national defense, has found that the labor move­ment must be recognized as the natural and official representative of the wage earners. She has found that she can deal with national problems only when she considers the ideals and the demands of the chosen representatives of the workers.

But the principles of human welfare can not be ignored in military matters or in plans for national de­fense just as they can not be ignored in industry or commerce. That infinitely valuable and sacred thing—human creative power—and the safeguarding of human rights and freedom are of fundamental im­portance and are correlated with national defense and must not be sacrificed to any false conception of na­tional defense. For to what end will a nation be saved if the citizens are denied that which gives life value and purpose?

The labor power of workers is to them their all. The deep significance of the protection and conserva­tion of their labor—their very lives—is what the Brit­ish Government of to-day has failed to understand. The deep significance of this declaration made a few days ago in England by an important labor organiza­tion has a meaning for us:

Unless the Government is prepared to confiscate the wealth of the privileged classes for the most successful prosecu­tion of the war, the railroad workers will resist to the uttermost the confiscation of men whose only wealth is their labor power.

Some employers of our country and some Govern­ment officials have refused to recognize organizations of wage earners, but organizations of wage earners are a necessary and an important part of the organiza­tion of industry and society, and any national policy that refuses to recognize and take into account such an important force must prove ineffective.

National policies, whether political or military, must be in accord with broad democratic ideals that recog­nize all factors and value each according to the serv­ice that it performs. There is a human side to all of our national problems, whether industrial, commercial, political, or military. It has been the general practice of governments to accord only to employers, the own­ers of capital, of the managerial side of commerce and industry, real participation in government and in de­ciding upon governmental policies. According to this custom the wage earners belong to the class of the governed, never to the governing class. This policy is a reflection of conditions existing in the industrial and commercial world. However, a change has been coming. The wage earners, through their economic associations, have been making the demand that those who supply the creative labor power of industry and commerce are surely as important to the processes of production as those who supply the materials necessary for production. They have, therefore, made demand that the human side of production shall at least be given as much consideration and as much importance as the material side. They demand that industry and com­merce shall be conducted not only in the interests of production but with consideration for the welfare and the conservation of the human beings employed in production. They have asserted the right that every policy affecting industry, commerce, financial institu­tions, and everything that is involved in the organiza­tion of society in some way affects the lives of those concerned in the industries or occupations and the wel­fare of those who are the consumers. Therefore they demand that those who are concerned in the conduct of the industry or occupation must be given the same con­sideration as those who are to make profits by the in­dustry. They have declared that these are principles of human welfare and have demanded that these must be considered in determining national policies. This is a democratic ideal and one which will promote the welfare of all of the people. Hence, it has an impor­tant bearing upon national preparedness, for it means that the great masses of the people will be better fitted physically and mentally to be intelligent, able pro­tectors of the nation.

In addition to policies of general preparedness, which are a part of the larger problem of national de­velopment and conservation, there must be some spe­cific plan and agency for national defense. Even the Socialists agree upon the necessity for wars of de­fense and for agencies of national defense. When war was declared the Socialists of Germany, of France, and of England flocked to the national standard to defend the flag. There is not a national Socialist organization in Europe that is not defending its par­ticipation in the war upon the plea of the necessity for national defense. The old international idealism of human brotherhood has, at least for this war, been shot to pieces on the battle field of Europe. They forgot their theories of pacifism and flew to arms to defend their homes, their families, and their govern­ments.

And the Socialists of the United States have not escaped dissensions as the result of the war and are now in a bitter wrangle upon the degree of military preparedness that ought to be adopted by this country. Some of the more violent pacifists are trying to force­fully eject from the party those who declare a policy of nonresistance as incompatible with the conditions that confront our Nation. Other Socialists, such as Charles Edward Russell, renounce their old dreams and acknowledge that human nature makes it neces­sary for us to be ready for national defense. Prom­inent members of the Socialist Party—Joshua Wan-hope and W. J. Ghent—declare that socialism is a revolutionary movement and hence Socialists can not renounce the use of force. Both declare that the So­cialist parties of the world have never taken the posi­tion of advocating Tolstoian nonresistance. Morris Hillquit has admitted that preparedness seems doomed to become the issue in the national convention and a plank in the Socialist Party platform. Henry L. Slobodin has said:

The Socialists had many occasions during the last 50 years to deliberate upon this problem and declare the Socialist attitude on military preparedness. And not once did the Socialists declare against preparedness. On every occasion they declared that the Socialists were, in their own way, in favor of military preparedness. The Socialists always were against standing armies and huge military establish­ments. But they always were and now stand committed in favor of universal military training and a citizens' army.

Recent dispatches from Berlin say that the executive committee of the Socialist Party has by a vote of 28 to 1 1 adopted a resolution censuring 20 Socialist mem­bers of the Reichstag for attempting to thwart the party's policy by declining to vote in favor of the war credits. Quite in contrast to this vacillation is the consistent attitude of the American Federation of Labor. The following declaration, made years ago, has stood the tests of the experiences of years. It embodies the wis­dom labor has gained in the struggle of life and work.

A man who is a wage earner and honorably working at his trade or calling to support himself and those dependent upon him has not only the right to become a citizen soldier, but that right must be unquestioned.

The militia, i. e., the citizen soldiery of the several States in our country, supplies what otherwise might take its place—a large standing army.

The difference between the citizen soldiery of the United States and the large standing armies of many European countries is the difference between a republic and monarchy—it is the difference between the conceptions of liberty and of tyranny.

While organized labor stands against the arbitrament of international or internal disputes by force of arms, yet we must realize we have not yet reached the millennium; that in the age in which we live we have not the choice between armed force and absolute disarmament, but the alternative of a large standing army and a small one supplemented by a volunteer citizen soldiery—the militia of our several States.

The 1915 (San Francisco) convention of the Ameri­can Federation of Labor reaffirmed this position by refusing to adopt resolutions which called upon all workers to desist from affiliating with any branch of the military forces.

A great majority of our nation are agreed upon the necessity for adopting a definite policy for necessary national defense. Of course, there is not unity upon any one policy. Whatever plan may be adopted, the organized-labor movement of America, which is di­rectly representative of millions of organized wage earners and indirectly representative of millions more of unorganized workers, demands that certain funda­mental principles must be regarded.

All policies and plans for national defense must be determined by representatives of all of the people.

The organized-labor movement, which is the only means for expressing the will and the desires of the great masses of our citizenship, asserts its right to representation in all committees, or bodies that decide upon military defense. The working people of all nations are always those most vitally affected by mili­tary service in time of peace or war. Upon them falls the burden of the fighting in the ranks and they have ever been expected to act as shock absorbers for the evil consequences of war. They have been the chief sufferers from evils of militarism wherever that malicious system has fastened itself upon a nation. Since they have been the victims of the hurtful poli­cies of military defense, they will be the most inter­ested in safeguarding our own national plans from dangers and from evils of militarism that have been disclosed by the experiences of other countries.

Preparedness is something very different from militarism or navalism. Both leave an indelible im­pression upon the nation, one for freedom and the other for repression. Militarism and navalism are a perversion of preparedness—instead of serving the interests of the people, the people are ammunition for these machines. They are destructive to freedom and democracy.

An understanding of human nature and of condi­tions is convincing proof that every nation must have some means of self-defense. The agencies and poli­cies for this purpose must be carefully chosen.

The labor movement has always been a leader in the cause of democracy. The labor movement de­mands democracy in all things, including military or­ganizations and institutions of the country. It holds that policies and methods of self-defense are best safe­guarded when there is equal opportunity for all to become members of whatever organizations and in­stitutions, whether military or otherwise, exist throughout the country. Not only must entrance to all institutions be freely and equally accorded to all, but the military must be democratically organized, democratically officered, and under the control of heads who are responsible to the citizens of the land.

In addition to the regular army there must be a citizenship physically fit, ready and able to serve. Equal opportunity for military training must be pro­vided for the citizenship generally—opportunity at­tended by provisions that make it equal in reality and truly democratic.

All agree that physical training with knowledge and the ability to bear and use arms will have a wholesome effect upon the health, strength, and preparedness of the people of the United States. If that training is given through voluntary institutions, organized upon a democratic basis, it will have a wholesome effect upon the civic life of the nation also.

Democratic spirit is essential. Any plan that rec­ognizes professions or other distinctions will tend toward military castes, a condition incompatible with the freedom, the spirit, and the genius of our Repub­lic.

Absolute democracy in voluntary service for na­tional defense will have an effect upon all other rela­tions of life. It will make for better understanding. It will bind all together in unselfish service and broaden and deepen that which constitutes the com­mon life of our nation. Men can not resist the ap­peal of human nature.

The labor movement is militant. The workers un­derstand the necessity for power and its uses. They fully appreciate the important function that power ex­ercises in the affairs of the world. Power does not have to be used in order to be potential. The very existence of power and ability to use that power con­stitute a defense against unreasonable and unwar­ranted attack. Ability and readiness for self-defense constitute a potential instrumentality against unnec­essary and useless wars, or the denial of rights and justice.

The labor movement has never advocated the aboli­tion of agencies for the enforcement of right and jus­tice, or for the abolition of the military arm of gov­ernment, but it does demand that these shall be so or­ganized as to prevent their misuse and abuse as a means of tyranny against the workers, and to pre­vent the development of pernicious results that have grown out of militarism, the building up of a sepa­rate military caste and the subversion of civic life to military government and military standards. When military institutions and military service are separated from the general life of the people they become sub­versive to the ideals of civic life, they become danger­ous to the best development and the best interests of the nation.

The rights and privileges of citizenship impose a duty upon all who enjoy them. That duty involves service to the nation in all relations of the common life, including its defense against attack and the main­tenance of national institutions and ideals.

There are no citizens of our country who are more truly patriotic than the organized wage earners—or all of the wage earners—and we have done our share in the civic life of the nation as well as in the na­tion's wars. We have done our share to protect the nation against insidious attacks from within that were directed at the very heart of our national life and would have inevitably involved us in foreign compli­cations. The wage earners stood unfalteringly for ideals of honor, freedom, and loyalty. Their wisdom and their patriotism served our country in a time of great need. No one can question that the wage earn­ers of the United States are patriotic in the truest sense. No one can question their willingness to fight for the cause of liberty, freedom, and justice. No one can question the value of the ideals that direct the la­bor movement.

The labor movement takes the position that plans and policies for national defense and preparedness must be in accord with an educated conscience which can discern values, and is able and alert to distinguish the vital from the less important, and willing to insist upon the ideals and standards of justice, equality, and freedom.

Every observer knows that there is no peace—all of life is a struggle, physical and mental. Progress re­sults only from the domination of the forces making for freedom and opportunity over the forces of re­pression.

I may summarize the situation into these few con­crete suggestions:

1. The recognition of and coöperation with the or­ganized-labor movement in all fields of activity—in­dustrial, commercial, political, social, moral defense.

2. Establishment and extension of the citizen sol­diery, democratically organized, officered, adminis­tered, and controlled.

3. Prohibition of the use of the militia for strike duty.

4. Education of wage earners upon an equality with all other citizens in manual training, physical and men­tal development, in organizing, officering, administer­ing, and leading in the operations of a military char­acter for the defense of our country.

5. Industrial education and vocational training as part of the educational system of the States, with financial aid of the Federal Government.

6. Education of the young, physical and mental, in­cluding the art and the duty of defense, the ability to bear arms, the inculcation of the ideals of democracy, civic rights, and duties and obligations.

7. Inculcate in all our people a social conscience for a better concept of industrial justice.

The thoughts and suggestions I have submitted should commend themselves to the serious and favor­able consideration and action of all of our people—all their groups and associations. Put into actual op­eration they will make not only for immediate effec­tive preparedness for defense, but will prove the po­tential means for permanent preparedness and de­fense, and at the same time make all our people more efficient in their every endeavor, and in addition safe­guard the spirit of justice, freedom, democracy, and humanity.