Page:The International Socialist Review (1900-1918), Vol. 1, Issue 1.pdf/7

Rh men which does not express the will of money interests, you can do better than I. Much has been said in criticism of Senator Beveridge for his frank speech in the Senate relative to the Philippines. No criticism is justifiable. Indeed, he is the bravest and frankest of the lot. No other member of the upper house stands so squarely upon the fundamental principles of our government as he does. What are the vast armies and navies of the present day? Nothing but police for the protection of the interests of wealth. What are our laws? Nothing but the provisions which plutocracy makes for its own preservation.

Let me make myself perfectly clear. I want you to understand exactly what I mean, because it is of the first importance that we grasp this fundamental truth. Government, let us understand, is not determined by deliberate choice. Its form is not decided in legislative halls—never has been. It is decided rather by the market. It is decided by commercial and industrial interests. Plutocracy is not a national affair. It is international. It is rapidly becoming the government of the world. It is that now, so far as the dominant power is concerned. The interests of wealth decide the final policies of all civilized nations. Of course, there are nations, like Russia and China and Turkey, which have not yet fully emerged from barbarism, and these nations are not so completely plutocratic as Great Britain and the United States. But today it is clear and tomorrow it will be clearer that the real government in the British Empire and in the American Republic is one and the same thing, necessarily so. No bond can unite two nations so powerfully and closely as the interests of wealth. We may cherish the notion that sentiment is the controlling force, but we shall cherish a delusion. No interests of any sort ever successfully compete with the interests of capitalism.

Let us now consider the question whether or not a plutocracy is the most desirable form of government. The question may best be considered in a form. 1st. Has plutocracy performed a great service to the world? 2nd. Is there good reason for believing that it can no longer serve the best interests of the race? We shall not hesitate to answer the first of these questions in the affirmative. Plutocracy is a part of evolution and as such it must have served a useful purpose. No form of government ever existed which did not serve a useful purpose. I think we shall be able to see how great a debt we owe to plutocracy. The human race has come a long way from the dawn of creation. If we could see all the path it has followed, we should see many things which would shock our sensibilities, but they were all necessary and, measured by what they achieved in human development, they were good. The physical development of man is the sole product of ages and bloody struggle. The