I do not wish to be thought to deny that capitalism does very much to promote wars, or that wars would probably be less frequent and lessdestructive if private property were abolished.On the contrary, I believe that the abolition of private ownership of land and capital is a necessary step toward any world in which the nations are to live at peace with one another.I am only arguing that this step, necessary as it is, will not alone suffice for this end, but that among the causes of war there are others that go deeper into the roots of human nature than any that orthodox Socialists are wont to acknowledge.
Let us take an instance.In Australia and California there is an intense dislike and fear toward the yellow races.The causes of this are complex; the chief among them are two, labor competition and instinctive race- hatred.It is probable that, if race- hatred did not exist, the difficulties of labor competition could be overcome.European immigrants also compete, but they are not excluded.In a sparsely populated country, industrious cheap labor could, with a little care, be so utilized as to enrich the existing inhabitants; it might, for example, be confined to certain kinds of work, by custom if not by law.But race-hatred opens men's minds to the evils of competition and closes them against the advantages of co-operation; it makes them regard with horror the somewhat unfamiliar vices of the aliens, while our own vices are viewed with mild toleration.I cannot but think that, if Australia were completely socialized, there would still remain the same popular objection as at present to any large influx of Chinese or Japanese labor.Yet if Japan also were to become a Socialist State, the Japanese might well continue to feel the pressure of population and the desire for an outlet.In such circumstances, all the passions and interests required to produce a war would exist, in spite of the establishment of Socialism in both countries.Ants are as completely Socialistic as any community can possibly be, yet they put to death any ant which strays among them by mistake from a neighboring ant-heap.Men do not differ much from ants, as regards their instincts in this respect, where- ever there is a great divergence of race, as between white men and yellow men.Of course the instinct of race-hostility can be overcome by suitable circumstances; but in the absence of such circumstances it remains a formidable menace to the world's peace.
If the peace of the world is ever to become secure, I believe there willhave to be, along with other changes, a development of the idea which inspires the project of a League of Nations.As time goes on, the destructiveness of war grows greater and its profits grow less: the rational argument against war acquires more and more force as the increasing productivity of labor makes it possible to devote a greater and greater proportion of the population to the work of mutual slaughter.In quiet times, or when a great war has just ended, men's moods are amenable to the rational grounds in favor of peace, and it is possible to inaugurate schemes designed to make wars less frequent.Probably no civilized nation would embark upon an aggressive war if it were fairly certain in advance that the aggressor must be defeated.This could be achieved if most great nations came to regard the peace of the world as of such importance that they would side against an aggressor even in a quarrel in which they had no direct interest.It is on this hope that the League of Nations is based.
But the League of Nations, like the abolition of private property, will be by no means sufficient if it is not accompanied or quickly followed by other reforms.It is clear that such reforms, if they are to be effective, must be international; the world must move as a whole in these matters, if it is to move at all.One of the most obvious necessities, if peace is to be secure, is a measure of disarmament.So long as the present vast armies and navies exist, no system can prevent the risk of war.But disarmament, if it is to serve its purpose, must be simultaneous and by mutual agreement among all the Great Powers.And it is not likely to be successful so long as hatred and suspicion rule between nations, for each nation will suspect its neighbor of not carrying out the bargain fairly.A different mental and moral atmosphere from that to which we are accustomed in international affairs will be necessary if agreements between nations are to succeed in averting catastrophes.If once such an atmosphere existed it might be perpetuated and strengthened by wise institutions; but it cannot be CREATED by institutions alone.International co-operation requires mutual good will, and good will, however it has arisen, is only to be PRESERVED by co-operation.The international future depends upon the possibility of the initial creation of good will between nations.
